" ! SENATE 

112TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

112–173 

Calendar No. 419 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 3254]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 4, 2012.—Ordered to be printed 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

74–387 

" ! SENATE 

112TH CONGRESS

2nd Session 

REPORT

2012

112–173 

Calendar No. 419 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 3254]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 4, 2012.—Ordered to be printed 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director 

ANN E. SAUER, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Purpose of the Bill ................................................................................................... 1 

Committee overview .................................................................................. 2 

Scoring of budgetary effects (sec. 4) ......................................................... 3 

Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget implication ....... 3 

Summary of National Defense Authorizations For Fiscal Year 

2013 Table ....................................................................................... 4 

National Defense Budget Authority Implication Table ................................. 9 

Division A—Department of Defense Authorizations ............................................ 11 

Title I—Procurement ............................................................................................... 11 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 11 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101) .............................................. 11 

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 11 

Multiyear procurement authority for Army CH–47F helicopters (sec. 

111) ......................................................................................................... 11 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 11 

Refueling and complex overhaul of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln (sec. 

121) ......................................................................................................... 11 

Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (sec. 122) .................................................... 11 

Limitation on availability of amounts for second Ford class aircraft 

carrier (sec. 123) .................................................................................... 12 

Multiyear procurement authority for Virginia class submarine program (sec. 124) ....................................................................................... 12 

Multiyear procurement authority for Arleigh Burke class destroyers 

and associated systems (sec. 125) ......................................................... 13 

Authority for relocation of certain Aegis weapon system assets between and within the DDG–51 class destroyer and Aegis Ashore 

Programs in order to meet mission requirements (sec. 126) .............. 14 

Designation of mission modules of the littoral combat ship as a 

major defense acquisition program (sec. 127) ...................................... 15 

Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Procurement of Ammunition, 

Navy and Marine Corps funds (sec. 128) ............................................. 16 

Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Procurement, Marine Corps funds 

for procurement of weapons and combat vehicles (sec. 129) .............. 16 

Sense of Congress on Marine Corps amphibious lift and presence 

requirements (sec. 130) ......................................................................... 16 

Sense of Senate on Department of Navy fiscal year 2014 budget 

request for tactical aviation aircraft (sec. 131) .................................... 17 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 17 

Reduction in number of aircraft required to be maintained in strategic airlift aircraft inventory (sec. 141) .............................................. 17 

Treatment of certain programs for the F–22A Raptor aircraft as 

major defense acquisition program (sec. 142) ...................................... 17 

Avionics systems for C–130 aircraft (sec. 143) ....................................... 19 

Procurement of space-based infrared system satellites (sec. 144) ......... 19 

Transfer of certain fiscal year 2011 and 2012 funds for aircraft procurement for the Air Force (sec. 145) ................................................... 20 

Subtitle E—Joint and Multiservice Matters .................................................. 20 

Multiyear procurement authority for V–22 Joint Aircraft Program 

(sec. 151) ................................................................................................. 20 

Limitation on availability of funds for full-rate production of 

Handheld, Manpack, and Small Form/Fit radios under the Joint 

Tactical Radio System program (sec. 152) ........................................... 20 

Shallow Water Combat Submersible Program (sec. 153) ....................... 21 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 22 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

IV 

Title I—Procurement—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Army ........................................................................................................... 22 

Joint tactical radio systems integration ........................................... 22 

M88A2 improved recovery vehicle .................................................... 22 

Advanced procurement for M1 Abrams tank upgrade program ..... 22 

Lightweight .50 caliber machine gun ............................................... 24 

30mm and 40mm ammunition reductions for excess ...................... 24 

Excalibur 1–b round schedule delay ................................................. 25 

Spider network munitions reduction ................................................ 25 

Family of medium tactical vehicles .................................................. 25 

Joint tactical radio system airborne and maritime/fixed radios .... 25 

Spider remote control unit ................................................................ 25 

Sense-through-the-wall sensor program ........................................... 25 

Small unmanned ground vehicle ...................................................... 26 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund .................................... 26 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund ............................. 26 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 26 

F/A–18E/F ........................................................................................... 26 

Close-in weapon system modifications ............................................. 27 

81mm, grenade, and demolition munitions reductions for excess .. 27 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 27 

Joint surveillance/target attack radar system ................................. 27 

Defense-wide .............................................................................................. 29 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense .............................................. 29 

Special operations aviation ................................................................ 30 

High definition full motion video ...................................................... 30 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 31 

Common remotely operated weapon station ........................................... 31 

Impact of Global Hawk Block 30 termination ........................................ 31 

Integrated base defense ............................................................................ 31 

Joint strike fighter program ..................................................................... 32 

Paladin integrated management program .............................................. 34 

Rotary-wing planning tools ....................................................................... 34 

Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget implication ....... 34 

Use of advance procurement for major systems ..................................... 35 

U.S. Special Operations Command Budget line items ........................... 36 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ...................................... 37 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 37 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201) .............................................. 37 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 37 

Next Generation Foundry for the Defense Microelectronics Activity 

(sec. 211) ................................................................................................. 37 

Advanced rotorcraft initiative (sec. 212) ................................................. 37 

Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Navy research, development, 

test, and evaluation funds (sec. 213) .................................................... 40 

Authority for Department of Defense laboratories to enter into education partnerships with educational institutions in United States 

territories and possessions (sec. 214) ................................................... 41 

Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Air Force research, development, 

test, and evaluation funds (sec. 215) .................................................... 41 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Matters .............................................................. 41 

Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 231) ......................................... 41 

Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 232) ............................................ 42 

Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233) ................................ 42 

Next-generation Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (sec. 234) ...................... 43 

Modernization of the Patriot air and missile defense system (sec. 

235) ......................................................................................................... 44 

Medium Extended Air Defense System (sec. 236) .................................. 44 

Availability of funds for Iron Dome short-range rocket defense program (sec. 237) ....................................................................................... 45 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 45 

Mission packages for the littoral combat ship (sec. 251) ....................... 45 

Comptroller General of the United States annual reports on the 

acquisition program for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (sec. 252) . 46 

Conditional requirement for report on amphibious assault vehicles 

for the Marine Corps (sec. 253) ............................................................ 46 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 47 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

V 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation—Continued 

Subtitle E—Other Matters—Continued 

Transfer of administration of Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel from Department of the Navy to National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (sec. 271) ................................................ 47 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 47 

Army ........................................................................................................... 47 

Medium Extended Air Defense System ............................................ 47 

Improved turbine engine program .................................................... 48 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 48 

Next generation aerial refueling aircraft ......................................... 48 

Defense-wide .............................................................................................. 49 

Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict Advanced Development and Combatting Terrorism Technology Support ................ 49 

Industrial base innovation fund ........................................................ 50 

Defense microelectronics strategy and Next Generation Foundry . 50 

Advanced sensor applications program ............................................ 52 

U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs .......................... 52 

Department of Defense Corrosion Program shortfall ...................... 53 

Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program 

science and technology thrust areas ............................................. 53 

General fund enterprise business systems realignment ................. 55 

Developmental test and evaluation .................................................. 56 

Shallow Water Combat Submersible Program ................................ 56 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs ................. 56 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 58 

Adaptive engine technology development program ................................ 58 

Air Force cyber and information technology research ............................ 58 

Air Force space developmental test and evaluation ............................... 59 

Applied mathematics and computational science ................................... 59 

Army manned airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

platforms ................................................................................................ 60 

Army robotics ............................................................................................. 61 

Ballistic missile defense overview ............................................................ 62 

Cyber research, development, test, and evaluation, and training infrastructure ............................................................................................ 67 

Department of Defense labs workforce and infrastructure .................... 69 

Dry Combat Submersible .......................................................................... 70 

Energy efficiency research and development coordination and transition .......................................................................................................... 70 

Hexavalent chromium ............................................................................... 71 

Human bone collections for Department of Defense research ............... 71 

Hypersonics ground test and evaluation capabilities and workforce .... 71 

Internet cartography ................................................................................. 73 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology—Lincoln Laboratory improvement project ........................................................................................... 74 

Medical Countermeasures Initiative ........................................................ 74 

Naval electromagnetic railgun projectiles ............................................... 75 

Naval Engineering Education Center ...................................................... 75 

Support for the Minerva Research Initiative .......................................... 76 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance .................................................................. 79 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 79 

Operation and maintenance funding (sec. 301) ...................................... 79 

Subtitle B—Energy and Environmental Provisions ...................................... 79 

Department of Defense guidance on environmental exposures at military installations (sec. 311) ................................................................... 79 

Funding of agreements under the Sikes Act (sec. 312) .......................... 80 

Limitation on availability of funds for procurement of alternative 

fuel (sec. 313) ......................................................................................... 80 

Subtitle C—Logistics and Sustainment .......................................................... 81 

Repeal of certain provisions relating to depot-level maintenance (sec. 

321) ......................................................................................................... 81 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 82 

Annual report on Department of Defense long-term corrosion strategy 

(sec. 331) ................................................................................................. 82 

Modified deadline for Comptroller General review of annual report 

on prepositioned materiel and equipment (sec. 332) .......................... 82 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 82 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance —Continued 

Subtitle E—Other Matters —Continued 

Savings to be achieved in civilian workforce and contractor employee 

workforce of the Department of Defense (sec. 341) ............................. 82 

NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 342) ............................... 83 

Repeal of redundant authority to ensure interoperability of law enforcement and emergency responder training (sec. 343) .................... 84 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 84 

General Fund Enterprise Business System realignment ....................... 84 

Museum funding decrease for ahead of need request ............................ 84 

Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances ................................ 85 

U.S. Special Operations Command Operation and Maintenance .......... 85 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency ..................................................... 85 

Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request .................... 86 

Enhanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support to 

Operation Observant Compass ............................................................. 86 

Operation and Maintenance funding for impact aid .............................. 87 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 87 

Advanced predictive modeling and simulation methodologies .............. 87 

Air Force strategic basing process ........................................................... 88 

Canines in support of members of the armed forces .............................. 88 

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of Department 

of Defense security cooperation activities ............................................ 88 

Consideration of fuel cell systems ............................................................ 89 

Corrosion prevention ................................................................................. 89 

Corrosion projects return on investment and funding for corrosionrelated activities .................................................................................... 90 

Critical manufacturing capabilities and capacities ................................ 91 

Department of Defense inventory management ..................................... 91 

Energy performance savings contracts .................................................... 92 

Essential role of rare earth materials ..................................................... 92 

Funding shortfalls for minimum capital investment program, facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization, and base operations support ........................................................................................ 92 

Ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms ................................... 93 

Lack of competition in Air Force C–17 engine maintenance contracting ................................................................................................... 94 

Marine Corps depot maintenance activity group .................................... 95 

Modernizing the aging fleet ...................................................................... 95 

Rapid equipping and fielding initiatives ................................................. 95 

Readiness support for unfunded requirements ....................................... 96 

Report on Defense Science Board climate change recommendations ... 96 

Title IV—Military Personnel Authorizations ........................................................ 99 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 99 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 99 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 100 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 100 

End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves 

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 100 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 101 

Fiscal year 2013 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 

(sec. 414) ................................................................................................. 101 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support (sec. 415) ................................................ 101 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 102 

Military personnel (sec. 421) .................................................................... 102 

Budget Item ...................................................................................................... 102 

Military personnel funding changes ........................................................ 102 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy ......................................................................... 103 

Subtitle A—Officer Policy ................................................................................ 103 

Extension of relaxation of limitation on selective early discharges 

(sec. 501) ................................................................................................. 103 

Exception to 30-year retirement for regular Navy warrant officers 

in the grade of chief warrant officer, W–5 (sec. 502) .......................... 103 

Modification of definition of joint duty assignment to include all 

instructor assignments for joint training and education (sec. 503) ... 103 

Sense of Senate on inclusion of assignments as academic instructor 

at the military service academies as joint duty assignments (sec. 

504) ......................................................................................................... 104 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VII 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy —Continued 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 104 

Authority for appointment of persons who are lawful permanent residents as officers of the National Guard (sec. 511) .............................. 104 

Reserve component suicide prevention and resilience program (sec. 

512) ......................................................................................................... 104 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities ........................................................ 104 

Diversity in the armed forces and related reporting requirements 

(sec. 521) ................................................................................................. 104 

Modification of authority to conduct programs on career flexibility 

to enhance retention of members of the armed forces (sec. 522) ....... 105 

Authority for additional behavioral health professionals to conduct 

pre-separation medical examinations for post-traumatic stress disorder (sec. 523) ....................................................................................... 105 

Quarterly reports on involuntary separation of members of the armed 

forces (sec. 524) ...................................................................................... 105 

Review of eligibility of victims of domestic terrorism for award of 

the Purple Heart and the Defense Medal of Freedom (sec. 525) ....... 105 

Subtitle D—Military Justice and legal Matters Generally ........................... 106 

Clarification and enhancement of the role of the Staff Judge Advocate 

to the Commandant of the Marine Corps (sec. 531) ........................... 106 

Additional information in reports on annual surveys of the committee 

on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 532) ............................ 106 

Subtitle E—Sexual Assault, Hazing, and Related Matters .......................... 107 

Authority to retain or recall to active duty reserve component members who are victims of sexual assault while on active duty (sec. 

541) ......................................................................................................... 107 

Additional elements in comprehensive Department of Defense policy 

on sexual assault prevention and response (sec. 542) ........................ 107 

Hazing in the armed forces (sec. 543) ...................................................... 108 

Subtitle F—Education and Training ............................................................... 108 

Inclusion of the School of Advanced Military Studies Senior Level 

Course as a senior level service school (sec. 551) ................................ 108 

Modification of eligibility for associate degree programs under the 

Community College of the Air Force (sec. 552) ................................... 108 

Support of Naval Academy Athletic Programs (sec. 553) ...................... 108 

Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical accession programs (sec. 554) ..................................................................................... 109 

Authority for service commitment for Reservists who accept fellowships, scholarships, or grants to be performed in the Selected Reserve (sec. 555) ....................................................................................... 109 

Repeal of requirement for eligibility for in-state tuition of at least 

50 percent of participants in Senior Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps program (sec. 556) ....................................................................... 110 

Modification of requirements on plan to increase the number of units 

of the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (sec. 557) .................. 110 

Consolidation of military department authority to issue arms, tentage, and equipment to educational institutions not maintaining 

units of the Junior ROTC (sec. 558) ..................................................... 111 

Modification of requirement for reports in Federal Register on institutions of higher education ineligible for contracts and grants for 

denial of ROTC or military recruiter access to campus (sec. 559) ..... 111 

Comptroller General of the United States report on the Reserve 

Officers’ Training Corps (sec. 560) ....................................................... 111 

Subtitle G—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military ........................... 112 

Family Readiness Matters ........................................................................ 112 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 571) ..................... 112 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that 

benefit dependents of members of the armed forces and Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 572) ..................................... 112 

Amendments to the impact aid program (sec. 573) ................................ 112 

Military spouses (sec. 574) ........................................................................ 112 

Modification of authority to allow Department of Defense domestic 

dependent elementary and secondary schools to enroll certain students (sec. 575) ....................................................................................... 112 

Sense of Congress regarding support for Yellow Ribbon Day (sec. 

576) ......................................................................................................... 113 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 113 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VIII 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy —Continued 

Subtitle H—Other Matters—Continued 

Family briefings concerning accountings for members of the armed 

forces and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as 

missing (sec. 581) ................................................................................... 113 

Enhancement of authority to accept gifts and services (sec. 582) ......... 113 

Clarification of authorized Fisher House residents at the Fisher 

House for the Families of the Fallen and Meditation Pavilion at 

Dover Air Force Base, Delaware (sec. 583) .......................................... 113 

Report on accuracy of data in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility 

Reporting System (sec. 584) .................................................................. 113 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 114 

American Bar Association Military Pro Bono Project ............................ 114 

Army’s sexual assault and special investigation training ...................... 115 

Assessment of skills and abilities to enhance transition from military 

service ..................................................................................................... 115 

Crime Victims’ Rights Act ........................................................................ 115 

Department of Defense Inspector General oversight of investigations 

of sexual assault .................................................................................... 116 

Inclusion of synthetic drug compounds in the Uniform Code of Military Justice ............................................................................................. 116 

Joint Professional Military Education special areas of emphasis ......... 116 

Recruiting for cyber-related career fields ................................................ 117 

Report on assignment policies concerning women in the armed forces 

and the characterization of certain combat-related service ............... 117 

Report on specialized graduate programs ............................................... 118 

Requirement for Council of Governors views on legislative proposals 

addressing child custody litigation involving members of the armed 

forces ....................................................................................................... 118 

Social media and operational security ..................................................... 119 

Special Operations Force Generation ...................................................... 120 

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits ........................ 121 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 121 

Rates of basic allowance for housing for Army National Guard and 

Air National Guard members on full-time National Guard duty 

(sec. 601) ................................................................................................. 121 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 121 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

reserve forces (sec. 611) ......................................................................... 121 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

health care professionals (sec. 612) ...................................................... 121 

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 

officers (sec. 613) .................................................................................... 122 

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated 

special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614) .............. 122 

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 

37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) ................................................ 122 

Increase in amount of officer affiliation bonus for officers in the 

Selected Reserve (sec. 616) ................................................................... 122 

Increase in maximum amount of incentive bonus for reserve component members who convert military occupational specialty to ease 

personnel shortages (sec. 617) .............................................................. 122 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ......................................

Permanent change of station allowances for members of Selected 

Reserve units filling a vacancy in another unit after being involuntarily separated (sec. 631) ..................................................................... 122 

Authority for comprehensive program for space-available travel on 

Department of Defense aircraft (sec. 632) ........................................... 123 

Subtitle D—Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits ......................... 124 

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 termination of payment of Survivor Benefit Plan annuity (sec. 641) ......... 124 

Repeal of automatic enrollment in Family Servicemembers’ Group 

Life Insurance for members of the armed forces married to other 

members (sec. 642) ................................................................................ 124 

Subtitle E—Military Lending Matters ............................................................ 124 

Enhancement of protections on consumer credit for members of the 

armed forces and their dependents (sec. 651) ..................................... 124 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

IX 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy —Continued 

Subtitle E—Military Lending Matters—Continued 

Additional enhancements of protections on consumer credit for members of the armed forces and their dependents (sec. 652) .................. 124 

Relief in civil actions for violations of protections on consumer credit 

extended to members of the armed forces and their dependents 

(sec. 653) ................................................................................................. 125 

Modification of definition of dependent for purposes of limitations 

on terms of consumer credit extended to members of the armed 

forces and their dependents (sec. 654) ................................................. 125 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 125 

Transitional compensation for dependent children who are carried 

during pregnancy at time of dependent-abuse offense (sec. 661) ...... 125 

Title VII—Health Care Provisions ......................................................................... 127 

Subtitle A—TRICARE Program ...................................................................... 127 

Extension of TRICARE Standard coverage and TRICARE dental program for members of the Selected Reserve who are involuntarily 

separated (sec. 701) ............................................................................... 127 

Inclusion of certain over-the-counter drugs in TRICARE uniform formulary (sec. 702) .................................................................................... 127 

Expansion of evaluation of the effectiveness of the TRICARE program (sec. 703) ....................................................................................... 127 

Subtitle B—Other Health Care Benefits ........................................................ 128 

Use of Department of Defense funds for abortions in cases of rape 

and incest (sec. 711) .............................................................................. 128 

Availability of certain fertility preservation treatments for members 

of the armed forces on active duty (sec. 712) ...................................... 128 

Modification of requirements on mental health assessments for members of the armed forces deployed in connection with a contingency 

operation (sec. 713) ................................................................................ 128 

Subtitle C—Health Care Administration ....................................................... 128 

Clarification of applicability of certain authority and requirements 

to subcontractors employed to provide health care services to the 

Department of Defense (sec. 721) ......................................................... 128 

Research program to enhance Department of Defense efforts on mental health in the National Guard and reserves through community 

partnerships (sec. 722) .......................................................................... 129 

Subtitle D—Reports and Other Matters ......................................................... 129 

Reports on performance data on Warriors in Transition programs 

(sec. 731) ................................................................................................. 129 

Report on Department of Defense support of members of the armed 

forces who experience traumatic injury as a result of vaccinations 

required by the Department (sec. 732) ................................................ 129 

Plan to eliminate gaps and redundancies in programs of the Department of Defense on psychological health and traumatic brain injury 

among members of the armed forces (sec. 733) ................................... 130 

Report on implementation of recommendations of the Comptroller 

General of the United States on prevention of hearing loss among 

members of the armed forces (sec. 734) ............................................... 130 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 131 

Comptroller General study on Department of Defense health care 

contracting .............................................................................................. 131 

Cooperative health care agreements ........................................................ 132 

Health care provider appointment and compensation authorities ........ 132 

Medication therapy management ............................................................. 133 

Standards for production and performance of prostheses and prosthetic sockets for military amputees .................................................... 134 

TRICARE efficiencies ................................................................................ 135 

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters 137 

Subtitle A—Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs ... 137 

Limitation on use of cost-type contracts (sec. 801) ................................. 137 

Acquisition strategies for major subsystems and subassemblies on 

major defense acquisition programs (sec. 802) .................................... 137 

Management structure for developmental test and evaluation (sec. 

803) ......................................................................................................... 138 

Assessments of potential termination liability of contracts for the 

development or production of major defense acquisition programs 

(sec. 804) ................................................................................................. 139 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

X 

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters—Continued 

Subtitle A—Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs— 

Continued 

Technical change regarding programs experiencing critical cost 

growth due to change in quantity purchased (sec. 805) ..................... 139 

Repeal of requirement to review ongoing programs initiated before 

enactment of Milestone B certification and approval process (sec. 

806) ......................................................................................................... 140 

Subtitle B—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 140 

One-year extension of temporary limitation on aggregate annual 

amount available for contract services (sec. 821) ................................ 140 

Prohibition of excessive pass-through contracts and charges in the 

acquisition of services (sec. 822) ........................................................... 141 

Availability of amounts in Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund for temporary members of workforce (sec. 823) ............... 141 

Department of Defense policy on contractor profits (sec. 824) .............. 142 

Modification of authorities on internal controls for procurements on 

behalf of the Department of Defense by certain non-defense agencies (sec. 825) .......................................................................................... 142 

Extension of pilot program on management of supply-chain risk (sec. 

826) ......................................................................................................... 143 

Subtitle C—Amendments Relating to General Contracting Authorities, 

Procedures, and Limitations ........................................................................ 143 

Applicability of Truth in Negotiations Act to major systems and 

related subsystems, components, and support services (sec. 841) ..... 143 

Maximum amount of allowable costs of compensation of contractor 

employees (sec. 842) ............................................................................... 144 

Department of Defense access to and use of contractor internal audit 

reports (sec. 843) .................................................................................... 144 

Enhancement of whistleblower protections for contractor employees 

(sec. 844) ................................................................................................. 145 

Extension of contractor conflict of interest limitations (sec. 845) ......... 146 

Repeal of sunset for certain protests of task and delivery order contracts (sec. 846) ...................................................................................... 146 

Subtitle D—Provisions Relating to Wartime Contracting ............................ 147 

Responsibility within Department of Defense for contract support 

for overseas contingency operations (sec. 861) .................................... 147 

Annual reports on contract support for overseas contingency operations involving combat operations (sec. 862) ..................................... 147 

Inclusion of contract support in certain requirements for Department 

of Defense planning, joint professional military education, and 

management structure (sec. 863) ......................................................... 147 

Risk assessment and mitigation for contractor performance of critical 

functions in support of overseas contingency operations (sec. 864) ... 148 

Extension and modification of reports on contracting in Iraq and 

Afghanistan (sec. 865) ........................................................................... 149 

Extension of temporary authority to acquire products and services 

in countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 

866) ......................................................................................................... 149 

Compliance with Berry amendment required for uniform components 

supplied to Afghanistan military or Afghanistan National Police 

(sec. 867) ................................................................................................. 149 

Sense of the Senate on the contributions of Latvia and other North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization member nations to the success of 

the Northern Distribution Network (sec. 868) .................................... 149 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 150 

Requirements and limitations for suspension and debarment officials 

of the Department of Defense (sec. 881) .............................................. 150 

Uniform contract writing system requirements for the Department 

of Defense (sec. 882) .............................................................................. 150 

Comptroller General of the United States review of use by the Department of Defense of urgent and compelling exception to competition (sec. 883) ......................................................................................... 150 

Authority to provide fee-for-service inspection and testing by Defense 

Contract Management Agency for certain critical equipment in the 

absence of a procurement contract (sec. 884) ...................................... 151 

Disestablishment of Defense Materiel Readiness Board (sec. 885) ....... 151 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XI 

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters—Continued 

Subtitle E—Other Matters—Continued 

Modification of period of wait following notice to Congress of intent 

to contract for leases of certain vessels and vehicles (sec. 886) ......... 151 

Extension of other transaction authority (sec. 887) ............................... 151 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 151 

Competition in the development and procurement of training systems 

for major ground and airborne vehicle programs ................................ 151 

Engagement with independent experts and interested parties in implementation of counterfeit parts legislation ....................................... 152 

Implementation of section 811 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 ........................................................................ 152 

Inventories and reviews of contracts for services ................................... 153 

Joint Urgent Operational Needs and Joint Emergent Operational 

Needs ...................................................................................................... 154 

Recommendations by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the 

involvement by the service chiefs in the acquisition of major weapon systems .............................................................................................. 156 

Reverse auctions ........................................................................................ 157 

Strategic sourcing and spend analyses .................................................... 157 

Treatment of procurements on behalf of the Department of Defense 

in accordance with the interagency agreement between the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy ................................ 158 

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management ..................... 159 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management ......................................... 159 

Definition and report on terms ‘‘preparation of the environment’’ 

and ‘‘operational preparation of the environment’’ for joint doctrine 

purposes (sec. 901) ................................................................................. 159 

Expansion of duties and responsibilities of the Nuclear Weapons 

Council (sec. 902) ................................................................................... 159 

Subtitle B—Space Activities ............................................................................ 160 

Operationally Responsive Space Program Office (sec. 911) ................... 160 

Commercial space launch cooperation (sec. 912) .................................... 161 

Reports on integration of acquisition and capability delivery schedules for components for major satellite acquisition programs and 

funding for such programs (sec. 913) ................................................... 161 

Department of Defense representation in dispute resolution regarding surrender of Department of Defense bands of electromagnetic 

frequencies (sec. 914) ............................................................................. 161 

Subtitle C—Intelligence-Related and Cyber Matters .................................... 161 

Authority to provide geospatial intelligence support to security alliances and international and regional organizations (sec. 921) .......... 161 

Army Distributed Common Ground System (sec. 922) .......................... 162 

Rationalization of cyber networks and cyber personnel of the Department of Defense (sec. 923) .................................................................... 163 

Next-generation host-based cyber security system for the Department 

of Defense (sec. 924) .............................................................................. 164 

Improvements of security, quality, and competition in computer software procured by the Department of Defense (sec. 925) .................... 165 

Competition in connection with Department of Defense data link 

systems (sec. 926) .................................................................................. 168 

Integration of critical signals intelligence capabilities (sec. 927) .......... 168 

Collection and analysis of network flow data (sec. 928) ........................ 169 

Department of Defense use of National Security Agency cloud computing database and intelligence community cloud computing infrastructure and services (sec. 929) .......................................................... 170 

Electro-optical imagery (sec. 930) ............................................................ 172 

Software licenses of the Department of Defense (sec. 931) ................... 175 

Defense Clandestine Service (sec. 932) .................................................... 176 

Authority for short-term extension of lease for aircraft supporting 

the Blue Devil intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance program (sec. 933) ....................................................................................... 177 

Sense of the Senate on potential security risks to Department of 

Defense networks (sec. 934) .................................................................. 177 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 178 

National Language Service Corps (sec. 941) ........................................... 178 

Report on education and training and promotion rates for pilots 

of remotely piloted aircraft (sec. 942) ................................................... 178 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XII 

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management—Continued 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 178 

Operationally Responsive Space Funding ............................................... 178 

Space Test Program .................................................................................. 179 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 179 

Determination of accuracy of spectrum auction proceeds ...................... 179 

Development of cyber security expertise and partnerships ................... 180 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program ....................................... 180 

Navigation location and tracking in GPS-denied environments ........... 182 

Reports on airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

requirements and investment strategy ................................................ 182 

Report on cost savings in the Joint Space Operations Center Mission 

System Program ..................................................................................... 183 

Title X—General Provisions .................................................................................... 185 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 185 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................... 185 

Authority to transfer of funds to the National Nuclear Security Administration to sustain nuclear weapons modernization (sec. 1002) . 185 

Audit readiness of Department of Defense statements of budgetary 

resources (sec. 1003) .............................................................................. 185 

Report on effects of budget sequestration on the Department of Defense (sec. 1004) ..................................................................................... 185 

Subtitle B—Counter-Drug Activities .............................................................. 186 

Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to 

law enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities 

(sec. 1011) ............................................................................................... 186 

Requirement for biennial certification on provision of support for 

counter-drug activities to certain foreign governments (sec. 1012) ... 186 

Authority to support the unified counterdrug and counterterrorism 

campaign in Colombia (sec. 1013) ........................................................ 186 

Quarterly reports on use of funds in the Drug Interdiction and 

Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide account (sec. 1014) ............... 187 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 187 

Retirement of naval vessels (sec. 1021) ................................................... 187 

Termination of a Maritime Prepositioning Ship squadron (sec. 1022) . 188 

Sense of Congress on recapitalization for the Navy and Coast Guard 

(sec. 1023) ............................................................................................... 188 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism ......................................................................... 189 

Extension of certain prohibitions and requirements relating to detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

(sec. 1031) ............................................................................................... 189 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations ............................... 189 

Enhancement of responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff regarding the National Military Strategy (sec. 1041) ........... 189 

Modification of authority on training of special operations forces with 

friendly foreign forces (sec. 1042) ......................................................... 189 

Extension of authority to provide assured business guarantees to 

carriers participating in Civil Reserve Air Fleet (sec. 1043) .............. 190 

Participation of veterans in the Transition Assistance Program of 

the Department of Defense (sec. 1044) ................................................ 190 

Modification of the Ministry of Defense Advisors Program (sec. 1045) 190 

Interagency collaboration on unmanned aircraft systems (sec. 1046) .. 191 

Sense of Senate on notice to Congress on unfunded priorities (sec. 

1047) ....................................................................................................... 192 

Subtitle F—Reports .......................................................................................... 192 

Report on strategic airlift aircraft (sec. 1061) ......................................... 192 

Repeal of biennial report on the Global Positioning System (sec. 

1062) ....................................................................................................... 192 

Repeal of annual report on threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles (sec. 1063) ....................... 192 

Subtitle G—Nuclear Matters ........................................................................... 192 

Strategic delivery system (sec. 1071) ....................................................... 192 

Requirements definition for combined warhead for certain missile 

systems (sec. 1072) ................................................................................ 193 

Congressional Budget Office estimate of costs of nuclear weapons 

and delivery systems (sec. 1073) .......................................................... 193 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 193 

Redesignation of Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies as the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (sec. 1081) ... 193 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIII 

Title X—General Provisions—Continued 

Subtitle H—Other Matters—Continued 

Technical amendments to repeal statutory references to United 

States Joint Forces Command (sec. 1082) ........................................... 193 

Sense of Congress on non-United States citizens who are graduates 

of United States educational institutions with advanced degrees 

in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (sec. 1083) .... 193 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 194 

Arctic region ............................................................................................... 194 

B–52 Combat Network Communications Study ..................................... 195 

B–52 Strategic Radar Replacement ......................................................... 195 

Clarification of scope of requirements for periodic detention review 

of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ..................................................................................... 195 

Combat Network Communications Technology ...................................... 196 

Funds transfers between Department of Defense accounts ................... 196 

Government Accountability Office Report on duplication, overlap and 

fragmentation in federal programs ...................................................... 198 

Government Accountability Office review of the Nuclear Command, 

Control and Communications System .................................................. 199 

Hazard assessments related to new construction of obstructions on 

military installations and operations ................................................... 199 

Impacts of ‘‘Sequestration’’ on the Department of Defense ................... 200 

Resiliency and survivability for nuclear air-launched cruise and missile basing ............................................................................................... 201 

Roles of the Air Force Global Strike Command and Air Combat 

Command ............................................................................................... 202 

Safety and security standards for Department of Defense hazardous 

materials transport ................................................................................ 202 

Use of general purpose forces and special operations forces for security force assistance ............................................................................... 203 

Vacancies in critical Inspector General positions ................................... 204 

Working partnerships with State and local law enforcement authorities ........................................................................................................... 204 

Title XI—Civilian Personnel Matters .................................................................... 207 

Authority for transportation of family household pets of civilian personnel during evacuation of non-essential personnel (sec. 1101) ...... 207 

Expansion of experimental personnel program for scientific and technical personnel at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(sec. 1102) ............................................................................................... 207 

One-year extension of discretionary authority to grant allowances, 

benefits, and gratuities to personnel on official duty in a combat 

zone (sec. 1103) ...................................................................................... 207 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 207 

Department of Defense strategic workforce plan ................................... 207 

Title XII—Matters Relating to Foreign Nations ................................................... 209 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 209 

Extension of authority to build the capacity of foreign military forces 

and modification of notice in connection with initiation of activities 

(sec. 1201) ............................................................................................... 209 

Extension of authority for non-reciprocal exchange of defense personnel between the United States and foreign countries (sec. 1202) 209 

Authority to build the capacity of certain counterterrorism forces 

in Yemen and East Africa (sec. 1203) .................................................. 209 

Limitation on availability of funds for State Partnership Program 

(sec. 1204) ............................................................................................... 210 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan .............. 210 

Commanders’ Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan (sec. 

1211) ....................................................................................................... 210 

Extension of authority to support operations and activities of the 

Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1212) ............................... 211 

One-year extension and modification of authority to use funds for 

reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1213) ............................. 211 

One-year extension and modification of authority for program to develop and carry out infrastructure projects in Afghanistan (sec. 

1214) ....................................................................................................... 211 

Extension of Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (sec. 1215) ................. 212 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIV 

Title XII—Matters Relating to Foreign Nations —Continued 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan —Continued 

Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement of certain 

coalition nations for support provided to United States military 

operations (sec. 1216) ............................................................................ 213 

Extension and modification of logistical support for coalition forces 

supporting certain United States military operations (sec. 1217) ..... 213 

Strategy for supporting the achievement of a secure presidential 

election in Afghanistan in 2014 (sec. 1218) ......................................... 214 

Independent assessment of the Afghan National Security Forces (sec. 

1219) ....................................................................................................... 214 

Report on Afghanistan Peace and Reintegration Program (sec. 1220) . 214 

Subtitle C—Reports .......................................................................................... 215 

Review and reports on Department of Defense efforts to build the 

capacity of and partner with foreign security forces (sec. 1231) ........ 215 

Additional elements in annual report on military and security developments involving the People’s Republic of China (sec. 1232) ........... 215 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 216 

Improved administration of the American, British, Canadian, and 

Australian Armies’ Program (sec. 1241) .............................................. 216 

United States participation in Headquarters Eurocorps (sec. 1242) .... 216 

Department of Defense participation in European program on multilateral exchange of air transportation and air refueling services 

(sec. 1243) ............................................................................................... 217 

Authority to establish program to provide assistance to foreign civilians for harm incident to combat operations of the armed forces 

in foreign countries (sec. 1244) ............................................................. 217 

Limitation on availability of funds for certain capital projects in 

connection with overseas contingency operations (sec. 1245) ............ 218 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 218 

Insider threat ............................................................................................. 218 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization capabilities and burden-sharing .. 219 

Review of United States-Egypt military-to-military relations ............... 219 

Special operations security force assistance activities ........................... 220 

Title XIII—Cooperative Threat Reduction ............................................................ 223 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds (sec. 

1301) ............................................................................................................... 223 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) ....................................................................... 223 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 223 

Metrics for Cooperative Threat Reduction .............................................. 223 

Title XIV—Other Authorizations ........................................................................... 225 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ........................................................................ 225 

Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401) .......................................................... 225 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402) .............................................. 225 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1403) ........................................................ 225 

Chemical agents and munitions destruction, defense (sec. 1404) ......... 225 

Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-wide (sec. 

1405) ....................................................................................................... 225 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1406) ..................................................... 225 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile ......................................................... 225 

Release of materials needed for national defense purposes from the 

Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpile (sec. 1411) ........................ 225 

Subtitle C—Chemical Demilitarization Matters ............................................ 226 

Supplemental chemical agent and munitions destruction technologies 

at Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, and Blue Grass Army Depot, 

Kentucky (sec. 1421) .............................................................................. 226 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 227 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home 

(sec. 1431) ............................................................................................... 227 

Additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (sec. 

1432) ....................................................................................................... 227 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 228 

Defense Health Program funding ............................................................ 228 

Demand Reduction Program—expanded drug testing ........................... 228 

Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan ........................ 229 

Title XV—Authorization of Appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations ..................................................................................................................... 231


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XV 

Title XV—Authorization of Appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations —Continued 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 231 

Purpose (sec. 1501) .................................................................................... 231 

Procurement (sec. 1502) ............................................................................ 231 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1503) ....................... 231 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1504) .................................................. 231 

Military personnel (sec. 1505) .................................................................. 231 

Working capital funds (sec. 1506) ............................................................ 231 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1507) ........................................................ 231 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 

1508) ....................................................................................................... 231 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509) ..................................................... 232 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 232 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) ............................... 232 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) ...................................................... 232 

Subtitle C—Limitations and Other Matters .................................................. 232 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1531) ........................................ 232 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1532) ................. 233 

Plan for transition in funding of United States Special Operations 

Command from supplemental funding for overseas contingency operations to recurring funding under the future-years defense program (sec. 1533) ..................................................................................... 233 

Extension of authority on Task Force for Business and Stability 

Operations in Afghanistan (sec. 1534) ................................................. 234 

Assessments of training activities and intelligence activities of the 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (sec. 1535) . 234 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 234 

AH–64 Apache Block IIIB new build ....................................................... 234 

Rapid equipping soldier support equipment ........................................... 235 

Solar power units ...................................................................................... 235 

Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund ............................................................ 235 

Commanders’ Emergency Response Program ......................................... 235 

Installation information infrastructure support for United States 

Southern Command ............................................................................... 236 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund .................................... 236 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 237 

Department of Defense procurement of Mi–17 helicopters through 

Rosoboronexport ..................................................................................... 237 

Future size of the Afghan National Security Forces .............................. 238 

Title XVI—Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission ........................................................................................................................ 241 

Short title (sec. 1601) ................................................................................ 241 

Purpose (sec. 1602) .................................................................................... 241 

Definitions (sec. 1603) ............................................................................... 241 

Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission 

(sec. 1604) ............................................................................................... 241 

Commission hearings and meetings (sec. 1605) ..................................... 242 

Principles and procedure for commission recommendations (sec. 

1606) ....................................................................................................... 242 

Consideration of commission recommendations by the President and 

Congress (sec. 1607) .............................................................................. 243 

Pay for members of the commission (sec. 1608) ..................................... 243 

Executive Director (sec. 1609) .................................................................. 243 

Staff (sec. 1610) ......................................................................................... 243 

Contracting authority (sec. 1611) ............................................................. 244 

Judicial review precluded (sec. 1612) ...................................................... 244 

Termination (sec. 1613) ............................................................................ 244 

Funding (sec. 1614) ................................................................................... 244 

Title XVII—National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force ................. 245 

National commission on the structure of the Air Force (secs. 1701– 

1709) ....................................................................................................... 245 

Retention of core functions of the Electronic Systems Center at 

Hanscom Air Force Base pending future structure study (sec. 

1710) ....................................................................................................... 247 

Division B—Military Construction Authorizations ............................................... 249 

Summary and explanation of funding tables .......................................... 249 

Short title (sec. 2001) ................................................................................ 249 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVI 

Division B—Military Construction Authorizations —Continued 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified 

by law (sec. 2002) ................................................................................... 249 

Title XXI—Army Military Construction ................................................................ 251 

Summary .................................................................................................... 251 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2101) ....................................................................................................... 252 

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 252 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103) ................................. 252 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project 

(sec. 2104) ............................................................................................... 252 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2009 projects (sec. 

2105) ....................................................................................................... 252 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 projects (sec. 

2106) ....................................................................................................... 252 

Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project 

(sec. 2107) ............................................................................................... 253 

Title XXII—Navy Military Construction ............................................................... 255 

Summary .................................................................................................... 255 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2201) ....................................................................................................... 255 

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 255 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 255 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 256 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2012 project 

(sec. 2205) ............................................................................................... 256 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2009 projects (sec. 

2206) ....................................................................................................... 256 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 projects (sec. 

2207) ....................................................................................................... 256 

Realignment of Marines in the Asia-Pacific region (sec. 2208) ............. 256 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 256 

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of the costs 

of realignment of the Marines in the Asia-Pacific region ................... 256 

U.S. force posture in the Asia-Pacific and realignment of the U.S. 

Marines on Okinawa ............................................................................. 257 

Title XXIII—Air Force Military Construction ....................................................... 261 

Summary .................................................................................................... 261 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2301) ....................................................................................................... 261 

Family housing (sec. 2302) ....................................................................... 261 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) .................. 262 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) .......................... 262 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 projects (sec. 

2305) ....................................................................................................... 262 

Title XXIV—Defense Agencies Military Construction .......................................... 263 

Summary .................................................................................................... 263 

Subtitle A—Defense Agency Authorizations .................................................. 263 

Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2401) ................................................................................. 263 

Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) .............................. 264 

Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 2403) .............. 264 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2010 project (sec. 

2404) ....................................................................................................... 264 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2012 project 

(sec. 2405) ............................................................................................... 264 

Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project 

(sec. 2406) ............................................................................................... 264 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations ................................ 264 

Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization construction, defense-wide (sec. 2411) ............................................................... 264 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 1997 project 

(sec. 2412) ............................................................................................... 264 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 265 

Excess overseas facilities for defense agencies ....................................... 265 

Title XXV—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ...................................................................................................................... 267 

Summary .................................................................................................... 267 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVII 

Title XXV—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program—Continued 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2501) ....................................................................................................... 267 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ............................... 267 

Title XXVI—Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities ................................................ 269 

Summary .................................................................................................... 269 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations ... 269 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 269 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2602) ............................................................................................... 269 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction 

and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) ............................................. 269 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2604) ................................................................................. 269 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2605) ................................................................................. 269 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 

2606) ....................................................................................................... 270 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 270 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2009 project (sec. 

2611) ....................................................................................................... 270 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2010 projects (sec. 

2612) ....................................................................................................... 270 

Title XXVII—Base Realignment and Closure Activities ...................................... 271 

Summary and explanation of tables ........................................................ 271 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure activities funded through Department of Defense base closure account 1990 (sec. 2701) ........................................................................... 271 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure activities funded through Department of Defense base closure account 2005 (sec. 2702) ........................................................................... 271 

Technical amendments to section 2702 of fiscal year 2012 Act (sec. 

2703) ....................................................................................................... 271 

Criteria for decisions involving certain base closure and realignment 

activities (sec. 2704) ............................................................................... 271 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 272 

Government Accountability Office review of the systems and processes that the Department uses to identify the extent to which 

bases or facilities are excess to needs .................................................. 272 

Title XXVIII—Military Construction General Provisions .................................... 275 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ......................................................................................................... 275 

Authorized cost and scope variations (sec. 2801) .................................... 275 

Comptroller General report on in-kind payments (sec. 2802) ............... 276 

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside 

the United States (sec. 2803) ................................................................ 276 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 276 

Authority to accept as consideration for leases of non-excess property 

of military departments and defense agencies real property interests and natural resource management services related to agreements to limit encroachment (sec. 2811) ............................................. 276 

Clarification of parties with whom Department of Defense may conduct exchanges of real property at military installations (sec. 

2812) ....................................................................................................... 276 

Subtitle C—Energy Security ........................................................................... 276 

Guidance on financing for renewable energy projects (sec. 2821) ......... 276 

Continuation of limitation on use of funds for Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design (LEED) gold or platinum certification 

(sec. 2822) ............................................................................................... 277 

Prohibition on biofuel refinery construction (sec. 2823) ......................... 277 

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 277 

Land conveyance, local training area for Browning Army Reserve 

Center, Utah (sec. 2831) ........................................................................ 277 

Use of proceeds, land conveyance, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida 

(sec. 2832) ............................................................................................... 277 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVIII 

Title XXVIII—Military Construction General Provisions—Continued 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 277 

Clarification of authority of Secretary to assist with development 

of public infrastructure in connection with the establishment or 

expansion of a military installation (sec. 2841) .................................. 277 

Petersburg National Battlefield boundary modification (sec. 2842) ..... 277 

Congressional notification with respect to oversight and maintenance 

of base cemeteries following closure of overseas military installations (sec. 2843) ...................................................................................... 277 

Division C—Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and 

Other Authorizations ........................................................................................... 278 

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs ....................... 278 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 278 

Overview .................................................................................................... 278 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 278 

Weapons activities ..................................................................................... 279 

Directed stockpile work ............................................................................. 279 

Campaigns ................................................................................................. 280 

Readiness in the technical base ............................................................... 281 

Secure transportation asset ...................................................................... 283 

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response ........................................... 283 

Site stewardship ........................................................................................ 283 

Safeguards and security ........................................................................... 283 

National security applications .................................................................. 283 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs .......................................... 283 

Nonproliferation and verification research and development ................ 283 

Nonproliferation and international security ........................................... 284 

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation ................. 284 

Fissile materials disposition ..................................................................... 284 

Global threat reduction initiative ............................................................ 284 

Naval reactors ........................................................................................... 285 

Office of the Administrator ....................................................................... 285 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) ............................................ 285 

Savannah River Site ................................................................................. 286 

Waste Treatment Plant ............................................................................ 286 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) ......................................................... 286 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 286 

Replacement project for Chemistry and Metallurgy Research building, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 3111) ......... 286 

Submittal to Congress of selected acquisition reports and independent cost estimates on nuclear weapon systems undergoing life 

extension (sec. 3112) .............................................................................. 289 

Two-year extension of schedule for disposition of weapons-usable plutonium at Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina (sec. 3113) . 289 

Program on scientific engagement for nonproliferation (sec. 3114) ...... 289 

Repeal of requirement for annual update of Department of Energy 

defense nuclear facilities workforce restructuring plan (sec. 3115) ... 289 

Quarterly reports to Congress on financial balances for atomic energy 

defense activities (sec. 3116) ................................................................. 290 

Transparency in contractor performance evaluations by the National 

Nuclear Security Administration leading to award fees (sec. 3117) .. 290 

Expansion of authority to establish certain scientific, engineering, 

and technical positions (sec. 3118) ....................................................... 290 

Modification and extension of authority on acceptance of contributions for acceleration of removal or security of fissile materials, 

radiological materials, and related equipment at vulnerable sites 

worldwide (sec. 3119) ............................................................................. 290 

Cost containment for the Y–12 Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12 

National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (sec. 3120) ......... 291 

Authority to restore certain formerly Restricted Data to the Restricted Data category (Sec. 3121) ........................................................ 292 

Subtitle C—Reports .......................................................................................... 292 

Report on actions required for transition of regulation of non-nuclear 

activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration to federal agencies (sec. 3131) ........................................................................ 292 

Report on consolidation of facilities of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (sec. 3132) .................................................................... 292 

Regional radiological security zones (sec. 3133) ..................................... 293 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIX 

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs—Continued 

Subtitle C—Reports—Continued 

Report on legacy uranium mines (sec. 3134) .......................................... 293 

Comptroller General of the United States review of projects carried 

out by Office of Environmental Management of the Department 

of Energy pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (sec. 3135) ........................................................................... 293 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 293 

General Accountability Office Study of National Nuclear Security 

Administration Cost Estimating Practices .......................................... 293 

National Ignition Facility overhead structure ........................................ 294 

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities ............................................ 294 

Acquisition corps ....................................................................................... 294 

Plan for use of Office of Science facilities ................................................ 294 

Independence of the National Nuclear Security Administration .......... 295 

Adherence to section 3114 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 .................................................... 295 

Title XXXII—Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................ 297 

Authorization (sec. 3201) .......................................................................... 297 

Title XXXV—Maritime Administration ................................................................. 299 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) ....................................................... 299 

Division D—Funding Tables ................................................................................... 301 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) ......................... 301 

Title XLI—Procurement .......................................................................................... 303 

Procurement (sec. 4101) ............................................................................ 304 

Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102) ............... 350 

Title XLII—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ................................. 363 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201) ....................... 364 

Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency 

operations (sec. 4202) ............................................................................ 399 

Title XLIII—Operation and Maintenance ............................................................. 402 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301) .................................................. 403 

Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec. 

4302) ....................................................................................................... 418 

Title XLIV—Military Personnel ............................................................................. 427 

Military personnel (sec. 4401) .................................................................. 428 

Military personnel for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4402) ..... 429 

Title XLV—Other Authorizations ........................................................................... 431 

Other authorizations (sec. 4501) .............................................................. 432 

Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4502) . 434 

Title XLVI—Military Construction ........................................................................ 437 

Military construction (sec. 4601) .............................................................. 438 

Title XLVII—Department of Energy National Security Programs ..................... 461 

Department of Energy national security authorizations (sec. 4701) ..... 462 

Legislative Requirements ........................................................................................ 473 

Departmental Recommendations ............................................................. 473 

Committee Action ...................................................................................... 473 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................ 474 

Regulatory Impact ..................................................................................... 474 

Changes in Existing Law .......................................................................... 475 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 476 

Additional Views of Mr. Begich ................................................................ 476 

Additional Views of Mr. McCain .............................................................. 478 

Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe ................................................................ 482 

Additional Views of Mr. Chambliss ......................................................... 485 

Additional Views of Ms. Ayotte ................................................................ 486 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73–387 

Calendar No. 419 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 112–173 

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH 

FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

JUNE 4, 2012.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LEVIN, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 3254] 

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original 

bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 2013 for military 

activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, 

and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 

personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, 

and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL 

This bill would: 

(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) research, development, test and evaluation, (c) operation and 

maintenance and the revolving and management funds of the 

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013; 

(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military 

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 

2013; 

(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected 

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for fiscal year 2013; 

(4) impose certain reporting requirements; 

(5) impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement and research, development, test and evaluation actions 

and manpower strengths; provide certain additional legislative 

authority, and make certain changes to existing law; 

(6) authorize appropriations for military construction programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013; and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

(7) authorize appropriations for national security programs 

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2013. 

Committee overview 

The United States Armed Forces have been involved in armed 

conflict for more than 10 years. U.S. forces are drawing down in 

Afghanistan and are no longer deployed in Iraq. However, real 

threats to our national security remain and our forces are deployed 

throughout the globe. Whether engaged in combat in Afghanistan, 

tracking down Al Qaeda and associated forces in the Arabian Peninsula, keeping a watchful eye on Iran or North Korea, delivering 

humanitarian assistance to victims of natural disasters at home or 

abroad, or training foreign national forces to combat terrorism in 

their own countries, the men and women of our armed forces, both 

active and reserve, are serving honorably and courageously to promote and defend our Nation’s interests. They do so often at great 

personal risk and significant sacrifice to themselves and their families. 

The Administration has completed a comprehensive strategic review in the light of current and anticipated threats, and has put 

in place a new strategic guidance. The Department of Defense’s 

ability to implement that strategic guidance will be in question 

should the Administration and Congress fail to reach agreement on 

a plan to avoid automatic defense spending reductions scheduled to 

take effect in January 2013. 

In Afghanistan, the surge force will be withdrawn by the end of 

this summer, as Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) embark 

on the third tranche of the transition that will result in the ANSF 

having primary responsibility for three-fourths of the Afghan people. The transition to Afghan security lead throughout Afghanistan 

is on track to be completed by the end of 2014. 

To date in this Second Session of the 112th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services has conducted 32 hearings and formal 

briefings on the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2013, the 

ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, and related defense matters. 

In order to provide a framework for the consideration of these 

matters, the committee identified 10 guidelines to guide its work 

on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. 

These guidelines are: 

1. Improve the quality of life of the men and women of the allvolunteer force (active duty, National Guard, and Reserves) and 

their families, as well as Department of Defense civilian personnel, 

through fair pay, policies, and benefits, and address the needs of 

the wounded, ill, and injured service members and their families. 

2. Provide our service men and women with the resources, training, technology, equipment (especially force protection) and authorities they need to succeed in combat, counterinsurgency, and stability operations. 

3. Enhance the capability of the U.S. Armed Forces to support 

the ANSF and Afghan Local Police as the lead responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan transitions to the ANSF. 

4. Address the threats from nuclear weapons and materials by 

strengthening nonproliferation programs, maintaining a credible 

nuclear deterrent, reducing the size of the nuclear weapons stockVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

pile, and ensuring the safety, security and reliability of the stockpile, the delivery systems and the nuclear infrastructure. 

5. Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter nontraditional threats, focusing on terrorism, cyber warfare, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. 

6. Enhance the capability of the security forces of allied and 

friendly nations to defeat al Qaeda, its affiliates, and other violent 

extremist organizations. 

7. Seek to reduce our Nation’s strategic risk by taking action 

aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness of the military services to conduct the full range of their assigned missions. 

8. Terminate troubled or unnecessary programs and activities, 

identify efficiencies, and reduce defense expenditures in light of the 

Nation’s budget deficit problems. Ensure the future capability, viability, and fiscal sustainability of the all-volunteer force. 

9. Emphasize the reduction of dependency on fossil fuels and 

seek greater energy security and independence and pursue affordable technological advances in traditional and alternative energy 

storage, power systems, operational energy tactical advantages, renewable energy production, and more energy efficient ground, air, 

and naval systems. 

10. Promote aggressive and thorough oversight of the Department’s programs and activities to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant laws and regulations. 

Scoring of budgetary effects (sec. 4) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the budgetary effects of this Act be determined in accordance with 

the procedures established in the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 

2010 (title I of Public Law 111–139). 

Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget implication 

The administration’s budget request for national defense discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee 

on Armed Services for fiscal year 2013 was $631.6 billion. Of this 

amount, $525.3 billion was requested for base Department of Defense programs, $88.5 billion was requested for overseas contingency operations, and $17.8 billion was requested for national security programs in the Department of Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. 

The bill authorizes $631.4 billion in fiscal year 2013, including 

$525.8 billion for base Department of Defense programs, $88.2 billion for overseas contingency operations, and $17.3 billion for national security programs in the Department of Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. 

The administration’s fiscal year 2013 budget for national defense 

also included discretionary programs outside the jurisdiction of the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services, discretionary programs that 

do not require further authorization, and mandatory programs that 

are in current law. When these programs are added to the administration’s budget the request for national defense totaled $646.7 billion. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

The following two tables summarize the direct authorizations 

and the equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2013 defense programs. The first table summarizes committee action on 

the authorizations within the jurisdiction of this committee. It includes the authorization for spending from the trust fund of the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home which is outside the national defense budget function. The second table summarizes the total budget authority implication for national defense by adding funding for 

items that are not within the jurisdiction of this committee or do 

not require an annual authorization. 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2013 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations 

Division A: Base Budget (Titles I, II, III, IV, XIV, XVI) 

Title I: PROCUREMENT 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................. 5,853,729 –44,000 5,809,729 

Missile Procurement, Army .............................................................. 1,302,689 0 1,302,689 

Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army .................................. 1,501,706 188,817 1,690,523 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ................................................. 1,739,706 –166,438 1,573,268 

Other Procurement, Army ................................................................ 6,326,245 –19,212 6,307,033 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund ............................. 227,414 –227,414 0 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................. 17,129,296 60,000 17,189,296 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................... 3,117,578 7,700 3,125,278 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps ....................... 759,539 –100,800 658,739 

Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy .................................................... 13,579,845 777,679 14,357,524 

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................. 6,169,378 0 6,169,378 

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................. 1,622,955 –275,200 1,347,755 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ....................................................... 11,002,999 –908,748 10,094,251 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ........................................................ 5,491,846 0 5,491,846 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ........................................... 599,194 0 599,194 

Other Procurement, Air Force .......................................................... 16,720,848 0 16,720,848 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................. 4,187,935 234,400 4,422,335 

National Guard and Reserve Equipment ........................................ 0 0 0 

Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund ............................................. 99,477 0 99,477 

Subtotal, PROCUREMENT ................................................................ 97,432,379 –473,216 96,959,163 

Title II: RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION 

RDT&E, Army ................................................................................... 8,929,415 –425,661 8,503,754 

RDT&E, Navy .................................................................................... 16,882,877 –8,832 16,874,045 

RDT&E, Air Force ............................................................................. 25,428,046 –153,156 25,274,890 

RDT&E, Defense-Wide ...................................................................... 17,982,161 462,100 18,444,261 

Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense ......................................... 185,268 4,000 189,268 

Subtotal, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION ........... 69,407,767 –121,549 69,286,218 

Title III: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Operation & Maintenance, Army ..................................................... 36,608,592 –145,300 36,463,292 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy ..................................................... 41,606,943 –23,000 41,583,943 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2013 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps ........................................ 5,983,163 0 5,983,163 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ............................................... 35,435,360 –32,000 35,403,360 

Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide ....................................... 31,993,013 39,500 32,032,513 

Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve ....................................... 3,162,008 0 3,162,008 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve ........................................ 1,246,982 0 1,246,982 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve .......................... 272,285 0 272,285 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ................................. 3,166,482 0 3,166,482 

Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard ........................... 7,108,612 0 7,108,612 

Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard ............................... 6,015,455 0 6,015,455 

Miscellaneous Appropriations .......................................................... 2,340,038 0 2,340,038 

Subtotal, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...................................... 174,938,933 –160,800 174,778,133 

Title IV: MILITARY PERSONNEL ....................................................... 135,111,799 6,000 135,117,799 

Title XIV: OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Working Capital Fund, Army ........................................................... 60,037 0 60,037 

Working Capital Fund, Air Force ..................................................... 45,452 0 45,452 

Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide .............................................. 39,135 0 39,135 

Working Capital Fund, DECA ........................................................... 1,371,560 0 1,371,560 

National Defense Sealift Fund ........................................................ 608,136 0 608,136 

Defense Health Program ................................................................. 32,528,718 452,000 32,980,718 

Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Defense ...................... 1,301,786 0 1,301,786 

Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ................... 999,363 0 999,363 

Office of the Inspector General ....................................................... 273,821 59,100 332,921 

Subtotal, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ................................................. 37,228,008 511,100 37,739,108 

Title XVII: COMMISSION ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE AIR FORCE 0 1,400,000 1,400,000 

Subtotal, Division A, Base Budget ................................................. 514,118,886 1,161,535 515,280,421 

Division A: Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Budget (Title XV) 

Title XV—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

PROCUREMENT, OCO 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................. 486,200 –71,000 415,200 

Missile Procurement, Army .............................................................. 49,653 0 49,653 

Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army .................................. 15,422 0 15,422 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ................................................. 357,493 0 357,493 

Other Procurement, Army ................................................................ 2,015,907 33,000 2,048,907 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund ............................. 1,675,400 27,414 1,702,814 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................. 164,582 0 164,582 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................... 23,500 0 23,500 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps ....................... 285,747 0 285,747 

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................. 98,882 0 98,882 

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................. 943,683 0 943,683 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ....................................................... 305,600 0 305,600 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ........................................................ 34,350 0 34,350 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ........................................... 116,203 0 116,203 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2013 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Other Procurement, Air Force .......................................................... 2,818,270 0 2,818,270 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................. 196,349 0 196,349 

Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund ............................................. 100,000 0 100,000 

Subtotal, PROCUREMENT, OCO ....................................................... 9,687,241 –10,586 9,676,655 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION, OCO 

RDT&E, Army ................................................................................... 19,860 0 19,860 

RDT&E, Navy .................................................................................... 60,119 0 60,119 

RDT&E, Air Force ............................................................................. 53,150 0 53,150 

RDT&E, Defense-Wide ...................................................................... 112,387 0 112,387 

Subtotal, RDT&E, OCO .................................................................... 245,516 0 245,516 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, OCO 

Operation & Maintenance, Army ..................................................... 28,591,441 –240,000 28,351,441 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy ..................................................... 5,880,395 0 5,880,395 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps ........................................ 4,066,340 0 4,066,340 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ............................................... 9,241,613 0 9,241,613 

Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide ....................................... 7,824,579 0 7,824,579 

Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve ....................................... 154,537 0 154,537 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve ........................................ 55,924 0 55,924 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve .......................... 25,477 0 25,477 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ................................. 120,618 0 120,618 

Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard ........................... 382,448 0 382,448 

Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard ............................... 19,975 0 19,975 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund .................................................. 5,749,167 0 5,749,167 

Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund ..................................................... 400,000 –50,000 350,000 

Subtotal, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, OCO ............................. 62,512,514 –290,000 62,222,514 

MILITARY PERSONNEL, OCO ............................................................ 14,060,094 0 14,060,094 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS, OCO 

Working Capital Fund, Army ........................................................... 42,600 0 42,600 

Working Capital Fund, Air Force ..................................................... 240,400 0 240,400 

Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide .............................................. 220,364 0 220,364 

Defense Health Program ................................................................. 993,898 0 993,898 

Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ................... 469,025 0 469,025 

Office of the Inspector General ....................................................... 10,766 0 10,766 

Subtotal, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS, OCO ........................................ 1,977,053 0 1,977,053 

Subtotal, Division A, OCO Budget .................................................. 88,482,418 –300,586 88,181,832 

Total, Division A .............................................................................. 602,601,304 860,949 603,462,253 

Division B: Military Construction Authorizations 

Division B: Base Budget (Titles XXI—XXVII) 

Titles XXI—XXVI: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Military Construction, Army ............................................................. 1,923,323 –325,000 1,598,323 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2013 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps ............................... 1,701,985 –53,757 1,648,228 

Military Construction, Air Force ....................................................... 388,200 –65,657 322,543 

Military Construction, Defense-Wide ............................................... 3,654,623 –219,500 3,435,123 

NATO Security Investment Program ................................................ 254,163 0 254,163 

Military Construction, Army National Guard ................................... 613,799 0 613,799 

Military Construction, Air National Guard ....................................... 42,386 0 42,386 

Military Construction, Army Reserve ............................................... 305,846 0 305,846 

Military Construction, Navy Reserve ............................................... 49,532 0 49,532 

Military Construction, Air Force Reserve ......................................... 10,979 0 10,979 

Chemical Demilitarization Construction .......................................... 151,000 0 151,000 

Subtotal, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................... 9,095,836 –663,914 8,431,922 

Titles XXI—XXVI: FAMILY HOUSING 

Family Housing Construction, Army ................................................ 4,641 0 4,641 

Family Housing O&M, Army ............................................................. 530,051 0 530,051 

Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps .................. 102,182 0 102,182 

Family Housing O&M, Navy and Marine Corps ............................... 378,230 0 378,230 

Family Housing Construction, Air Force .......................................... 83,824 0 83,824 

Family Housing O&M, Air Force ...................................................... 497,829 0 497,829 

Family Housing O&M, Defense-Wide ............................................... 52,238 0 52,238 

Family Housing Improvement Fund ................................................. 1,786 0 1,786 

Subtotal, FAMILY HOUSING ............................................................. 1,650,781 0 1,650,781 

Title XXVII: BRAC 

Defense Base Closure Account 1990 .............................................. 349,396 0 349,396 

Defense Base Closure Account 2005 .............................................. 126,697 0 126,697 

Subtotal, BRAC ................................................................................ 476,093 0 476,093 

Total, Division B ............................................................................. 11,222,710 –663,914 10,558,796 

SUBTOTAL, BASE BUDGET, DIVISIONS A & B ................................. 525,341,596 497,621 525,839,217 

SUBTOTAL, OCO BUDGET, DIVISION A ............................................ 88,482,418 –300,586 88,181,832 

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (051) ....................................... 613,824,014 197,035 614,021,049 

Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and Other Authorizations 

Division C: (Titles XXXI and XXXII) 

Department of Energy Authorization (Title XXXI) 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ................................... 6,000 –6,000 0 

Title XXXI: NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Weapons Activities .......................................................................... 7,577,341 25,000 7,602,341 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .................................................... 2,458,631 0 2,458,631 

Naval Reactors ................................................................................ 1,088,635 37,986 1,126,621 

Office of the Administrator ............................................................. 411,279 –25,000 386,279 

Subtotal, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION .......... 11,535,886 37,986 11,573,872 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2013 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Title XXXI: ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ..................................................... 5,472,001 –463,000 5,009,001 

Other Defense Activities .................................................................. 735,702 0 735,702 

Subtotal, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ...... 6,207,703 –463,000 5,744,703 

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ................................................... 17,749,589 –431,014 17,318,575 

Title XXXII: DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ......................................... 29,415 0 29,415 

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ................. 29,415 0 29,415 

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053) .................... 17,779,004 –431,014 17,347,990 

GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050) ...................................... 631,603,018 –233,979 631,369,039 

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

Title XIV—Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600) ........... 67,590 0 67,590 

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS) 

Title X—General Transfer Authority (non-add) .............................. [5,000,000] 0 [5,000,000] 

Title XV—Special Transfer Authority (non-add) ............................. [4,000,000] 0 [4,000,000] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2013 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee 

SUBTOTAL, BASE BUDGET, DIVISIONS A & B ........................... 525,341,596 497,621 525,839,217 

SUBTOTAL, OCO BUDGET, DIVISION A ....................................... 88,482,418 –300,586 88,181,832 

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (051) .................................. 613,824,014 197,035 614,021,049 

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053) ............... 17,779,004 –431,014 17,347,990 

GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050) ................................. 631,603,018 –233,979 631,369,039 

Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are Not In the Jurisdiction of the 

Armed Services Committee or Do Not Require Additional Authorization 

Defense Production Act Purchases ............................................ 89,189 89,189 

Indefinite Account: National Science Center, Army .................. 25 25 

Indefinte Account: Disposal Of DOD Real Property ................... 7,855 7,855 

Indefinite Account: Lease Of DOD Real Property ...................... 12,029 12,029 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051 ........................................ 109,098 109,098 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ..................... 104,000 104,000 

Nuclear Energy ........................................................................... 93,000 93,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053 ........................................ 197,000 197,000 

Other Discretionary Programs .................................................... 7,168,000 7,168,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054 ........................................ 7,168,000 7,168,000 

Total Defense Discretionary Adjustments (050) ..................... 7,474,098 7,474,098 

Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary 

Department of Defense—Military (051) ................................... 613,933,112 197,035 614,130,147 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) .................................... 17,976,004 –431,014 17,544,990 

Defense-Related Activities (054) ............................................... 7,168,000 7,168,000 

Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary ........... 639,077,116 –233,979 638,843,137 

National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates) 

Concurrent receipt accrual payments to the Military Retirement Fund ............................................................................. 6,849,000 6,849,000 

Revolving, trust and other DOD Mandatory .............................. 1,100,000 1,100,000 

Offsetting receipts ..................................................................... –1,794,000 –1,794,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051 ........................................ 6,155,000 6,155,000 

Energy employees occupational illness compensation programs and other ................................................................... 1,165,000 1,165,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053 ........................................ 1,165,000 1,165,000 

Radiation exposure compensation trust fund ........................... 57,000 57,000 

Payment to CIA retirement fund and other .............................. 514,000 514,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054 ........................................ 571,000 571,000 

Total National Defense Mandatory (050) ................................ 7,891,000 7,891,000 

Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and Mandatory 

Department of Defense—Military (051) ................................... 620,088,112 197,035 620,285,147 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) .................................... 19,141,004 –431,014 18,709,990 

Defense-Related Activities (054) ............................................... 7,739,000 7,739,000 

Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary and 

Mandatory ............................................................................. 646,968,116 –233,979 646,734,137 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(11) 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for procurement activities at the levels identified in 

section 4101 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Army Programs 

Multiyear procurement authority for Army CH–47F helicopters (sec. 111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to enter a multiyear procurement contract 

in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, 

for up to 5 years for Army CH–47F Chinook helicopters. 

The committee has taken the position that committing the Department of Defense, Congress, and the taxpayers to multiyear contracts is justified only when the multiyear contract results in substantial savings that would not be achieved by annual contracts 

and meets other statutory criteria. In this case, the Army is projecting savings for this next multiyear contract, if authorized, to be 

just over 10 percent. The committee recommends supporting the request for multiyear contract authority, but directs the Secretary of 

the Army to provide the congressional defense committees with an 

annual briefing during the execution of this contract on progress 

achieved in meeting or exceeding the projected savings used to justify granting this authority. This briefing shall accompany the 

Army’s annual budget request. 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs 

Refueling and complex overhaul of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln (sec. 121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to provide funding for the refueling and complex overhaul of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln incrementally over a 

2-year period. 

Ford-class-aircraft-carriers (sec. 122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to buy Ford-class aircraft carriers designated 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

CVN–79 and CVN–80 over a 6-year period, rather than over a 5- 

year period as currently allowed. 

Limitation on availability of amounts for second Ford-class 

aircraft carrier (sec. 123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit fiscal 

year 2013 obligations for the Ford-class aircraft carrier program to 

50 percent of the amount in the budget, pending submission of a 

report by the Secretary of the Navy to the congressional defense 

committees setting forth a description of the program management 

and cost control measures that will be employed in constructing the 

second Ford-class aircraft carrier. 

The Secretary would be required, at a minimum, to describe a 

plan to: 

(1) maximize planned work in shops and early stages of construction; 

(2) sequence construction of structural units to maximize the 

effects of lessons learned; 

(3) incorporate design changes to improve producibility for 

the Ford-class aircraft carriers; 

(4) increase the size of erection units to eliminate disruptive 

unit breaks and improve unit alignment and fairness; 

(5) increase outfitting levels for assembled units before erection in the dry-dock; 

(6) increase overall ship completion levels at each key construction event; 

(7) improve facilities in a manner that will lead to improved 

productivity; and 

(8) ensure the shipbuilder initiates plans that will improve 

productivity through capital improvements that would provide 

targeted return on investment, including— 

(a) increasing the amount of temporary and permanent 

covered work areas; 

(b) adding ramps and service towers for improved access 

to work sites and the dry-dock; and 

(c) increasing lift capacity to enable construction of larger, more fully outfitted superlifts. 

The committee also expects the Secretary of the Navy to re-certify the statutory cost cap for the CVN–79 and that the Navy and 

the contractor will build this ship within the amount permitted by 

law. 

Multiyear procurement authority for Virginia-class submarine program (sec. 124) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to buy Virginia-class submarines under a 

multiyear procurement contract. This would be the third multiyear 

contract for the Virginia-class program. The Navy estimates that 

the previous two multiyear procurement contracts (fiscal years 

2003–2008 and fiscal years 2009–2013) achieved savings of greater 

than 10 percent as compared to annual procurements. For the third 

contract (for fiscal years 2014–2018), the Navy is estimating that 

the expected savings will be 14 percent for the multiyear approach 

as compared to annual procurement contracts. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

The Navy is expecting that the number of attack submarines will 

fall short of meeting the requirement in each of the 13 years 

(2022–2034), starting in the next decade, when the inventory of attack submarines will be below the requirement of 48 boats. The 

committee appreciates that fiscal year 2014 is the only year for the 

foreseeable future where we might afford to buy an additional attack submarine to mitigate that shortfall. In other years, we are 

already buying two boats or more, or a single attack submarine 

and a ballistic missile submarine. The next opportunity where the 

Navy intends to buy only one boat is 2036, far too late to have any 

effect on the projected requirements shortfall. 

Therefore, the provision would also permit the Navy to use incremental funding within the second and third multiyear for the explicit purpose of buying an extra boat in 2014. During budget deliberations surrounding the fiscal year 2013 budget, the Navy had to 

delete one of the two boats planned for fiscal year 2014 due to top 

line pressures on the budget, not due to any schedule or cost performance issues. The Navy believes that, if the Navy were allowed 

to incrementally fund the boats within these years, the Navy could 

buy an additional and restore the rate of two per year in 2014 

without requiring additional resources. This would have two-fold 

benefit of stabilizing production at a more affordable rate, and reducing the planned shortfall of attack submarines in each of the 13 

years when the Navy attack submarine inventory falls short of requirements, and would be consistent with congressional authorization in section 2308 of title 10, United States Code, for the Secretary to buy-to-budget. 

The committee appreciates that multiyear procurement authority 

already represents a departure from the full funding policy. In addition to the normal advance procurement (which is a lesser departure from full funding in itself), multiyear procurement authority 

allows the Department to contract for parts and construction effort 

on procurement items for which full funding has not been provided. 

The committee believes that, facing the choice between living with 

a shortfall in requirements and with a very stable production program, departing from the full funding policy for this very important 

program is an appropriate step at this time. 

The committee also recommends an increase of $777.7 million in 

advance procurement to provide a down payment on the second 

boat in fiscal year 2014. 

Multiyear procurement authority for Arleigh Burke-class 

destroyers and associated systems (sec. 125) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to buy up to 10 Arleigh Burke-class Flight 

IIA destroyers under a multiyear procurement contract. This would 

be the third multiyear contract for the Arleigh Burke-class program. The Navy estimates that the previous two multiyear procurement contracts (fiscal years 1998–2001 and fiscal years 2002– 

2005) achieved savings of greater than $1.0 billion, as compared to 

annual procurements. For the third contract (for fiscal years 2013– 

2017), the Navy is estimating that the expected savings will be 8.7 

percent, or in excess of $1.5 billion, for the multiyear approach as 

compared to annual procurement contracts. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

While the Navy’s shipbuilding plan currently provides for only 

nine Arleigh Burke-class destroyers during the period of the 

planned multiyear contract, the committee understands from the 

Navy that competition between the two shipyards in fiscal year 

2011 and 2012 has led to significant savings in the program compared to the original budget request. The Navy program office believes that competition for the multiyear contract starting in fiscal 

year 2013 could also yield additional savings, and that the sum 

total of those savings might be sufficient to purchase an additional 

destroyer in fiscal year 2014. The committee is recommending approval of a multiyear authority for up to 10 ships with the prospect 

that the Navy may be able to combine the savings from fiscal years 

2011, 2012, and 2013 and buy an additional destroyer, which is 

consistent with congressional authorization in section 2308 of title 

10, United States Code, for the Secretary to buy-to-budget. 

The committee believes that continued production of Arleigh 

Burke-class destroyers is critical to provide required forces for seabased ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities. The Navy envisions that, if research and development activities yield an improved 

radar suite and combat systems capability, they would like to install those systems on the destroyers in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, 

at which time the designation for those destroyers would be Flight 

III. Should the Navy decide to move forward with the integration 

of an engineering change proposal (ECP) to incorporate a new BMD 

capable radar and associated support systems during execution of 

this multiyear procurement, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees, no later than 

with the budget request for the year of contract award of such an 

ECP. The report will contain a description of the final scope of this 

ECP, as well as the level of maturity of the new technology to be 

incorporated on the ships of implementation and rationale as to 

why the maturity of the technology and the capability provided justify execution of the change in requirements under that ECP during the execution of a multiyear procurement contract. 

Authority for relocation of certain Aegis weapon system assets between and within the DDG–51 class destroyer and 

Aegis Ashore Programs in order to meet mission requirements (sec. 126) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Defense Department to transfer AEGIS weapon systems (AWS) equipment between ships in the DDG–51 class destroyer program, or between the DDG–51 class destroyer program and Missile Defense 

Agency’s (MDA) AEGIS Ashore Program, part of the European 

Phased, Adaptive Approach to missile defense. The Department anticipates that under the current budgets, MDA will be unable to obtain AWS equipment with ballistic missile defense (BMD) capability to support its first planned Aegis Ashore deployment in December 2015. If MDA is going to maintain that schedule, MDA 

would have to take delivery of AWS equipment with BMD capability in February 2013, to complete appropriate system integration 

and testing prior to shipment to the deployment site. MDA is requesting research, development, test, and evaluation funds in the 

fiscal years 2012 and 2013 budgets for the AWS equipment for the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

first deployment, but AWS equipment production lead times will 

not support delivery of an AWS with BMD capability in 2013 using 

those MDA funds alone. This provision would allow the Department to support the first MDA deployment by diverting AWS 

equipment from the DDG–51 program to support the MDA, and, 

using the MDA contract dollars to replace that diverted AWS 

equipment, still support the planned delivery dates of the AEGIS 

destroyers. 

Designation of mission modules of the littoral combat ship 

as a major defense acquisition program (sec. 127) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to designate the effort to develop and produce 

all variants of the mission modules in support of the Littoral Combat Ship program as a major defense acquisition program under 

section 2430 of title 10, United States Code. 

The committee seeks greater visibility into the procurement costs 

associated with mission modules supporting the Littoral Combat 

Ship program. The committee believes that, to ensure that it has 

the visibility required to fully understand and closely track the 

costs of developing and producing each variant of the mission module, the overall effort should be designated as a major defense acquisition program (MDAP). In so doing, the committee expects to 

receive all of the cost, schedule, and performance information on 

this effort that is typically produced in connection with typical 

MDAPs, including, selected acquisition reports, unit cost reports 

and program baselines. The committee hopes that this initiative 

will help discipline how the Department of the Navy has structured 

its plan to develop and produce each variant of the mission modules and improve Congress’ ability to subject the overall effort to 

strong oversight. 

As part of this initiative, the committee directs the Secretary of 

the Navy to provide the congressional defense committees, no later 

than 30 days after enactment of this Act, with the Department of 

the Navy’s estimates as to the cost of completing the development 

and production of each mission module, operative as of May 31, 

2012. 

The committee understands that in the fourth quarter of 2012, 

the Department of the Navy expects to approve the mission modules for entry into Milestone B, that is, the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the Defense Acquisition Management System. At that time, the committee expects that the Milestone Decision Authority will certify that, as required under section 

2366b of title 10, United States Code, reasonable cost and schedule 

estimates have been developed to execute, with the concurrence of 

the Director of the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the 

product development and production plan under the program. To 

ensure that the Department of the Navy’s plans to develop and 

produce these mission modules is realistic and affordable, the committee looks forward to receiving these cost and schedule estimates, 

will exercise close oversight of this certification, and expects that 

the Department will not waive the certification. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps funds (sec. 128) 

The committee recommends a provision that, to the extent provided in appropriations acts, the Secretary of the Navy may transfer $88.3 million of fiscal year 2012 funds made available for ammunition procurement for the Marine Corps to other higher priority programs. These funds are excess to Marine Corps needs for 

the procurement of small arms, 60mm and 81mm mortar rounds, 

grenades, artillery rounds, demolition munitions, and fuses. According to the Government Accountability Office, funds for procurement of these items are excess to need as a result of a change in 

the methodology for calculating consumption requirements for 

training, war reserves, and operations. 

Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Procurement, Marine 

Corps funds for procurement of weapons and combat vehicles (sec. 129) 

The committee recommends a provision that, to the extent provided in appropriations acts, the Secretary of the Navy may transfer $135.2 million of fiscal year 2012 funds made available for procurement of weapons and combat vehicles for the Marine Corps to 

other higher priority programs. These funds are excess to Marine 

Corps needs for the procurement of the Light Armored Vehicle–25 

(LAV–25) due to a reduction in the number of such vehicles that 

the Marine Corps intends to buy and sustain in the inventory. 

For the same reason, the committee recommends a reduction of 

$140.0 million to the budget request for LAV–25 procurement for 

fiscal year 2013. 

Sense of Congress on Marine Corps amphibious lift and 

presence requirements (sec. 130) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that: 

(1) the Department of Defense should carefully evaluate the 

maritime force structure necessary to execute demand for 

forces by the commanders of the combatant commands; 

(2) the Department of the Navy carefully evaluate amphibious lift capabilities to meet current and projected requirements; 

(3) the Department of the Navy should consider 

prioritization of investment in and procurement of the nextgeneration of amphibious assault ships, as a component of the 

balanced battle force; 

(4) the next-generation amphibious assault ships should 

maintain survivability protection; 

(5) operation and maintenance requirements analysis, as 

well as the potential to leverage a common hull form design, 

should be considered to reduce total ownership cost and acquisition cost; and 

(6) maintaining a robust amphibious ship building industrial 

base is vital for the future of the national security of the 

United States. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

Sense of Senate on Department of Navy fiscal year 2014 

budget request for tactical aviation aircraft (sec. 131) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that, if the budget request of the Department 

of the Navy for fiscal year 2014 for F–18 aircraft includes a request 

for funds for more than 13 new F–18 aircraft, the budget request 

of the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2014 for F–35 aircraft 

should include a request for funds for not fewer than 6 F–35B aircraft and 4 F–35C aircraft, presuming that development, testing, 

and production of the F–35 aircraft are proceeding according to current plans. 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs 

Reduction in number of aircraft required to be maintained 

in strategic airlift aircraft inventory (sec. 141) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 8062(g)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the number of strategic airlift aircraft the Air Force must maintain from 

301 aircraft to 275 aircraft. It would also correspondingly change 

the certification requirement in section 137 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). Finally, it would require that the Secretary of the Air Force maintain 

any C–5A aircraft retired after September 30, 2012, in inviolate 

storage with only the Secretary of Defense permitted to authorize 

the Air Force to take any spare parts from those aircraft. 

Treatment of certain programs for the F–22A Raptor aircraft as major defense acquisition program (sec. 142) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the Air Force report F–22A modernization and upgrade programs 

under the system of the Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR). The 

committee was informed that, with new production of the F–22A 

coming to an end, the Air Force intends to stop reporting within 

the SAR system on the F–22A, despite the fact that there could be 

as much as $11.7 billion remaining to be spent on defined F–22A 

upgrade programs. The committee believes the category ‘‘major defense acquisition programs’’ is not limited only to programs that 

are acquiring brand new weapon systems, and that any F–22A program for modifications or upgrades, if it would otherwise meet the 

statutory definition of a major defense acquisition program, should 

be treated that way. 

The committee believes there is ample justification for continuing 

to track F–22A modernization past the end of new production. 

(1) In April 2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

issued a report on the program to modernize the F–22A Raptor 

fleet, estimated to cost almost $10.0 billion through 2023. In this 

report, GAO noted that similar efforts to modernize Air Force and 

Navy tactical fighters in the past involved building upgrades into 

newly produced jets, resulting in entirely new, fresh airplanes. 

(2) In another report, issued in May 2012, GAO found that the 

total projected cost to modernize the F–22A Raptor fighter jet more 

than doubled from $5.4 billion to $11.7 billion since the program 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

started and the schedule for delivering full capabilities slipped 7 

years from 2010 to 2017. 

(3) Upgrades to the F–22A are much more complicated than 

those made to other legacy fighters, giving rise to likelihood of 

schedule slips and cost growth. 

(4) With these factors in mind, GAO believes that many of the 

Air Force’s F–22A Raptors may not get their long-promised capability upgrades until they will have, in some cases, expended as 

much as 20 percent of their service lives. This could limit the 

amount of utility the Air Force will be able to extract from this 

enormously expensive modernization program. 

F–22A Raptor Sustainment 

In addition to the near-term modernization, sustainment over the 

life cycle of a weapon system represents a significant expenditure 

of resources. On average, about two-thirds of the total life cycle cost 

of a major defense system lies in post-production—in its operation 

and sustainment over its useful life. If that rule were to hold true, 

with a charge of roughly $79.0 billion to buy the F–22A, the Air 

Force could be facing a demand for roughly $160.0 billion in F–22A 

sustainment costs. Moreover, under its ‘‘structures retrofit program’’, over the next few years the Air Force will need more than 

$100.0 million to retrofit the F–22A fleet just to ensure these aircraft can fly for the full 8,000 hours for which they were designed. 

Over just the last 2 years, the Air Force issued sole-source contracts for sustainment of the F–22A fleet to the prime contractor 

totaling almost $1.4 billion. 

The Air Force recently completed an F–22A sustainment strategy 

review that concluded that a joint contractor/government approach 

could save more than $1.0 billion in sustainment costs over the life 

of the aircraft. The committee believes that the Air Force must 

transition its sustainment strategy to adopt the least expensive 

sustainment strategy now, while continuing to be aggressive in exploring opportunities to compete F–22A sustainment work. 

F–22A Raptor Pilot Air-Supply Problems 

The Air Force has been having problems with the oxygen-supply 

for its F–22A Raptor pilots. The committee is aware of, and has 

been closely monitoring, these problems. The Air Force has documented 11 reported incidents of hypoxia-like symptoms in 10,000 

sorties (about 0.1 percent) since late 2011, with 6 of these incidents 

having occurred as recently as February and March 2012. Since reports of pilots experiencing hypoxia-like symptoms in flight first 

arose, the Secretary of the Air Force, among other actions, directed 

the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) to conduct a quicklook study; gather and evaluate information; and recommend any 

corrective actions on aircraft using on-board oxygen generation systems. Unfortunately, to date, the Air Force has not been able to 

identify conclusively a root cause for the problem. But, the committee has been assured that the Air Force has put in place measures intended to ensure that these aircraft are safe to fly, including 

new commercial oxygen status sensors and emergency oxygen handles in the aircraft. For this reason, after having grounded the fleet 

after initial reports of hypoxia-related symptoms in its pilots late 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

last year, the Air Force returned the F–22A to flying under its full 

mission envelope and, in fact, deployed it to Southwest Asia and 

the United Arab Emirates in late April. Despite that a small number of pilots have asked not to fly the F–22A or to be reassigned 

because of this issue, Air Force leadership has conveyed to the committee that, while the Air Force continues to investigate this problem, these aircraft are safe to fly today. 

Notably, the Navy had similar problems with F–18s; there were 

64 incidents from 2002 to 2009, resulting in 2 deaths. Ultimately, 

however, the Navy overcame these problems. The committee remains hopeful that the Air Force will be similarly successful. In the 

meantime, the committee will continue to exercise close oversight 

of this problem and how the Air Force addresses it. The committee 

directs the Secretary of the Air Force to explain, no later than 90 

days after enactment of this Act, how the Air Force has implemented or will implement each of the recommendations provided 

by the SAB. If the Secretary disagrees with any of these recommendations, he should explain why and describe what other corrective actions he may be taking to respond to the concern underlying that recommendation. 

Finally, as the Air Force continues to investigate this matter, the 

committee will view as unacceptable any act of retaliation against 

any F–22A Raptor pilot who raises concerns about the safety of 

this aircraft or declines to fly it on that basis. 

Avionics systems for C–130 aircraft (sec. 143) 

The committee recommends a provision that would delay Air 

Force implementation of the cancellation or modification of the Avionics Modernization Program for the C–130 aircraft until 30 days 

after the receipt of a report submitted to the congressional defense 

committees. 

Procurement of space-based infrared system satellites (sec. 

144) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Air Force to acquire two Space Based Infrared System Satellites (SBIRS) under a fixed price contract. The provision 

would further cap the total cost of the satellites at $3.9 billion but 

provide limited exceptions to this cap. The provision would also 

permit the Secretary to incrementally fund the contract over a 6 

year period. 

Thirty days after entering into the contract, the provision would 

direct the Secretary to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees setting forth the specifics of the contract, which would 

include the cost savings and total cost of the contract. A second report would be due 90 days after the date of the contract describing 

the amount of the cost savings achieved and how the Secretary 

plans to use the savings to improve the capability of military infrared and early warning satellites. In addition, the provision would 

authorize the Secretary to use prior year funds for advance procurement for SBIRS satellite 6. Finally, the provision would set 

forth a sense of Congress that the cost savings achieved through 

the contracting authority provided in the provision should result in 

no less than 20 percent cost savings. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

Transfer of certain fiscal year 2011 and 2012 funds for aircraft procurement for the Air Force (sec. 145) 

The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 

Secretary of the Air Force to use, subject to appropriations, prior 

year funds that have been made available from program cancellations reflected in the fiscal 2013 budget request. The funds available from cancellations are as follows: 

Program Recommended Amount 

(Dollars in millions) 

Light attack armed reconnaissance .................................................................................................... $115.0 

Light mobility aircraft .......................................................................................................................... 65.3 

Common vertical lift support platform ................................................................................................ 52.8 

C–130 avionics modernization program .............................................................................................. 207.2 

RQ–4 Global Hawk Block 30 ................................................................................................................ 480.4 

Total ............................................................................................................................................. $920.7 

Subtitle E—Joint and Multiservice Matters 

Multiyear procurement authority for V–22 Joint Aircraft 

Program (sec. 151) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to buy V–22 aircraft for the Department of 

the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, and the United States 

Special Operations Command under a multiyear procurement contract. This would be the second multiyear contract for the V–22 

program. The Navy estimates that for the second contract (for fiscal years 2013–2017), the Navy stands to achieve almost 12 percent 

savings under the multiyear approach, as compared to annual procurement contracts. 

Limitation on availability of funds for full-rate production 

of Handheld, Manpack, and Small Form/Fit radios under 

the Joint Tactical Radio System program (sec. 152) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation of any funds for full rate production of the Joint Tactical 

Radio System (JTRS), Handheld, Manpack, and Small Form/Fit 

(HMS) radios until the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics (USD–ATL) certifies to the congressional 

defense committees that there is an approved acquisition strategy 

that promotes full and open competition to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

The committee continues to support the JTRS program and remains convinced that managing program costs through competition 

will contribute significantly to the success and affordability of the 

Army’s tactical network objectives. The committee is also aware 

that for over a year the Joint Program Office for JTRS has been 

preparing a detailed plan for an innovative acquisition model that 

would take advantage of competition based upon the availability of 

several developers of software programmable tactical radios that 

could meet the standards of JTRS. Accordingly, in last year’s Senate report accompanying S. 1253 (S. Rept. 112–26) of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the committee directed that the USD–ATL provide a briefing on the approved comVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

petition strategy for JTRS HMS radios. The committee is concerned 

that after nearly 1 year there is still no approved competition strategy and that additional delay will make it more difficult for potential JTRS tactical radio producers to meet the Army’s testing, certification, competition, and production objectives. The committee 

believes that competition, taking maximum advantage of both government and commercially developed and available tactical radios 

that meet JTRS technical and operational requirements, provides 

the Army the most affordable and flexible means of realizing its 

plans for a fully networked operational force. 

Shallow Water Combat Submersible Program (sec. 153) 

On November 9, 2010, U.S. Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM) provided the committee with a notification that the 

Command had awarded a sole source contract for the Shallow 

Water Combat Submersible (SWCS) program and stated ‘‘the contract provides only for firm-fixed-price task orders which are established in the contract.’’ USSOCOM has requested a modification to 

its fiscal year 2013 budget request that would transfer $8.0 million 

from Procurement, Defense-wide, to Research, Development, Test, 

and Evaluation, Defense-wide, to pay for cost growth in the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the SWCS program. According to U.S. USSOCOM, ‘‘extreme schedule variations 

from the baseline resulted in the inability to accurately track 

progress and cost.’’ In response to an inquiry from committee staff 

following notification of SWCS cost and schedule variations, 

USSOCOM indicated ‘‘the contract has a combination of cost contract line items and firm fixed price contract line items.’’ 

The committee is concerned by the inaccurate and misleading 

contract notification described above and that it only learned of the 

projected SWCS schedule and cost overruns following the release of 

the fiscal year 2013 budget. The committee expects full and accurate notification of contract awards and reiterates its expectation 

that USSOCOM will keep it adequately informed of such acquisition program deviations at the time they are identified. 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Commander of USSOCOM, not later than 90 days after enactment 

of this Act, to provide the congressional defense committees with 

a report describing: efforts by the contractor and USSOCOM to 

more accurately track schedule and cost; the revised timeline for 

SWCS initial and full operational capability; and the projected cost 

to meet the basis of issue requirement. The provision would also 

require that the Commander submit quarterly updates on the 

metrics from the earned value management system with which the 

Command is tracking cost and scheduled performance of the contractor. That requirement shall lapse once the SWCS has completed operational testing and has been found to be operationally 

effective and operationally suitable. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

Budget Items 

Army 

Joint tactical radio systems integration 

The budget request included $46.8 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for the integration of the Joint Tactical Radio 

System (JTRS) onto the UH–60M Black Hawk and CH–47 Chinook 

helicopters. The committee notes that the airborne and maritime/ 

fixed portion of the JTRS program is in the process of a restructuring that will result in an updated acquisition strategy, revised 

acquisition program baseline, and updated test and evaluation 

master plan. It is unlikely that JTRS radios will be available for 

integration before the end of fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends a decrease of $44.0 million in APA for aircraft integration of the JTRS radio. 

M88A2 improved recovery vehicle 

The budget request included $107.9 million in Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the M88A2 (Hercules) 

improved recovery vehicle. The committee notes that the M88A2 is 

an upgrade program to the existing M88A1 recovery vehicle making it the only vehicle capable of towing an M1 Abrams tank without assistance from other vehicles. The Army planned to use a 

mixed fleet of M88A2s and older M88A1s in its armor brigade combat teams. M1 Abrams tanks require M88A2 recovery vehicles, but 

the current M2 Bradley vehicles, and other armored vehicle 

variants, can be recovered by the M88A1. The Army would reconsider its recovery vehicle mix, if any, when the M2 Bradley replacement Ground Combat Vehicle program matures and the recovery 

requirements of that vehicle are known. In the meantime, there is 

risk of a suspension of the industrial capability and capacity for 

production of M88A2 vehicles, as well as likely production of the 

Paladin Integrated Management program, and the potential production of a replacement for the M113 family of armored personnel 

carriers. 

The committee recommends an increase of $123.0 million in 

WCTV for the M88A2 improved recovery vehicle to mitigate the 

risk of the suspension of production through fiscal year 2013. 

Advanced procurement for M1 Abrams tank upgrade program 

The budget request included $74.4 million in Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the M1 Abrams tank 

upgrade program. The budget request funds technical support services and the cost of fielding M1A2 System Enhancement Package 

(SEP) tanks to the Army, but does not fund additional tank upgrades. The committee recommends an increase of $91.0 million in 

WTCV only for the advanced procurement of critical long-lead materials for the Abrams upgrade program. 

The committee is aware that beginning in fiscal year 2014 the 

Army will suspend its M1 Abrams tank upgrade program for up to 

3 years at which time it plans to start its next series of improvements. Congress provided additional funds in the fiscal year 2012 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

appropriation to sustain tank production at the facility through 

2013 and into 2014. However, not enough tank upgrade production 

is funded in the fiscal year 2013 request to sustain the facility 

throughout 2014. 

The Army’s tank industrial base and production facility could 

sustain its minimum capability and capacity over the next 3 years 

if a number of potential tank and other armored vehicle sales to 

foreign allies are approved and orders finalized over the next several months. If all projected and potential foreign sales materialize, 

armored vehicle production could exceed the minimum sustaining 

requirement asserted by the contractor until the Army starts its 

next tank upgrade program. 

Given that funds added by Congress in fiscal year 2012 already 

sustains production through fiscal year 2013, the industrial base 

risk is limited to long-lead materials related to potential production 

shortfalls in fiscal year 2014. Accordingly, in order to reduce industrial risk among second and third tier suppliers, the committee recommends an increase of $91.0 million in WTCV for advance procurement of long-lead materials for 33 additional tanks in the M1 

Abrams upgrade program. Advanced procurement is common to 

many large, complex weapon systems programs in which funds are 

provided in 1 or more years prior to the year of final production 

in order to ensure the availability of those components that require 

a long time to produce for installation at the appropriate point in 

the assembly process. 

Additional funds for M1 Abrams tank upgrade advanced procurement should be targeted in a manner that best mitigates the most 

acute criticality and fragility risks in the industrial base among 

small suppliers who are in danger of getting out of the tank components business 6 months or more ahead of final tank production. 

The committee expects the Army to use data developed by the Department of Defense’s ongoing sector by sector/tier by tier analysis 

of the defense industrial base in making decisions on the allocation 

of these funds. 

Supporting long-lead suppliers with additional funds in fiscal 

year 2013 also manages financial risk in this challenging budget 

environment and allows time for the resolution of sales to foreign 

allies that could stabilize and sustain the flow of workload throughout the production cycle for the Army’s facility and suppliers. Congress retains the flexibility to fund the completion of this tank production, if necessary to sustain the facility’s minimum requirements, in fiscal year 2014. 

Finally, the committee recognizes that the Army is working 

through force structure and capability mix analysis and decision 

making processes that to a significant extent will determine the demand for tank production for the next 10 or more years. Additionally, the Defense Department’s and Army’s increased focus on 

building the capacity of partner nations will create particular combat vehicle production demands. Accordingly, the committee directs 

the Secretary of the Army to report not later than March 31, 2013, 

on the Army’s analysis and plans to utilize and configure it’s government-owned/contractor-operated tank production facility to efficiently and effectively meet the Army’s tank and other tracked and 

wheeled vehicle production related requirements and foreign miliVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

tary sales to meet Department partnership building capability 

goals to 2025 and beyond. 

Lightweight .50 caliber machine gun 

The budget request included $25.2 million in Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the XM806 lightweight .50 caliber machine gun. The committee understands that 

the Army will terminate this program and therefore recommends 

a decrease of $25.2 million in WCTV for the XM806 lightweight .50 

caliber machine gun. 

The committee also understands that the decision to cancel the 

XM806 program was based on the Army’s recalculation of its machine gun requirements given pending force structure reductions 

and cost tradeoffs compared to upgrading the currently fielded 

version of the M2A1 .50 caliber machine gun. 

The committee is concerned that this decision may be inconsistent with the Army’s broader equipping objectives to reduce the 

soldier’s load while at the same time increasing the capability and 

reliability of weapons. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit with its fiscal year 2014 budget request submission, a report to the congressional defense committees 

on its revised requirements for M2 .50 caliber machine guns, in 

light of proposed force structure reductions, with a description of 

its plan to meet those requirements. The report should include: cost 

and schedule plans for the overhaul of M2 .50 caliber weapons 

through the future-years defense program (FYDP); the estimated 

procurement average unit cost of M2 .50 caliber overhaul compared 

to the cost of producing the XM806; the current number of M2 and 

M2A1 machine guns in the Army inventory; the total number of .50 

caliber machine guns that would be in the inventory at the end of 

the FYDP if funds for M2 overhaul were allocated for new XM806 

machine guns; the costs and benefits of the XM806 compared to M2 

and M2A1 weapons; and an assessment of the potential impact of 

the Army’s M2 and M2A1 plan to the machine gun industrial base. 

30mm and 40mm ammunition reductions for excess 

The budget request included $1.7 billion in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $72.1 million was for 30mm and 

$60.1 million was for 40mm. 

The Government Accountability Office has identified $37.0 million in excess to requirements for 30mm in fiscal year 2013 due to 

changes in pricing. Additionally, $75.0 million in excess to requirements in fiscal year 2011 funding for 40mm ammunition has been 

identified and has been returned by the Army’s Program Executive 

Office for Ammunition to the Army Budget Office for potential reprogramming. This funding remains available for obligation until 

September 30, 2013, and if released back to the program, $60.1 

million could be used to cover the Army’s entire fiscal year 2013 

procurement budget request for 40mm ammunition. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $97.1 million in PAA: $37.0 million in 30mm and $60.1 million in 40mm. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

Excalibur 1–b round schedule delay 

The budget request included $110.3 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Army (PAA), for 155mm extended range XM–982 (Excalibur 1–b). 

The committee was briefed by the Army that the Excalibur 1–b 

round will have a schedule delay in fiscal year 2013. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $55.0 million in PAA for 155mm extended range XM–982 munitions. 

Spider network munitions reduction 

The budget request included $1.7 billion in Procurement of Am- munition, Army (PAA), of which $17.4 million was for Spider network munitions. 

The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation expressed concerns with respect to the XM–7 Spider. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $14.3 million in PAA for Spider network munitions. 

Family of medium tactical vehicles 

The budget request included $346.1 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for the procurement of Family of Medium Tactical Vehicle (FMTV) trucks. The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in OPA for FMTV trucks for the U.S. Army 

Reserve. 

Joint tactical radio system airborne and maritime/fixed radios 

The budget request included $74.0 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA), for the procurement of airborne and maritime/fixed 

(AMF) radios. The committee notes that the AMF portion of the 

Joint Tactical Radio System program is in the process of a restructuring that will result in an updated acquisition strategy, revised 

acquisition program baseline, and updated test and evaluation 

master plan. It is unlikely that JTRS radios will be available for 

integration onto Army helicopters before the end of fiscal year 

2014. The committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million in 

OPA for AMF radio. 

Spider remote control unit 

The budget request included $34.4 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA), for the Spider remote control unit. The committee 

notes that this technology is not performing as expected and will 

not be approved for service use until awarded a full material release and type classification late in fiscal year 2013. The committee 

recommends a decrease of $21.0 million in OPA for Spider remote 

control units. 

Sense-through-the-wall sensor program 

The budget request included $6.2 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA), for the sense-through-the-wall (STTW) sensor. The 

committee notes that the program has been delayed due to technology performance issues and that most of the funds provided in 

prior year appropriations remains unobligated. The committee recommends a decrease of $6.2 million in OPA for STTW. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

Small unmanned ground vehicle 

The budget request included $83.9 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA), for the small unmanned ground vehicle (SUGV). At 

the Army’s request, the committee recommends a decrease of $12.0 

million in OPA for SUGV and an increase of $12.0 million in PE 

64641A for continued SUGV research and development. 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

The budget request included $227.4 million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF) staff and infrastructure line of operation. The committee recommends transferring all 

of JIEDDF funds from title I to the same budget activity in title 

XV, which funds the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) of 

the Department. The committee believes JIEDDO should be in the 

OCO portion of the budget request as it was established in response to threats confronted by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. 

Navy 

F/A–18E/F 

The budget request included $3,063.6 million to purchase 26 F/ 

A–18E/F aircraft and 12 EA–18G aircraft. The budget also included 

$30.3 million for advance procurement of 13 F/A–18E/F aircraft in 

fiscal year 2014. Fiscal year 2014 would represent the final year of 

production for the Department of the Navy. Throughout the past 

several years, the committee has expressed concern that the Navy 

is facing a sizeable gap in aircraft inventory as older F/A–18A–D 

Hornets retire before the aircraft carrier variant (F–35C) of the 

Joint Strike Fighter is available. 

This year, the Navy says that the maximum shortfall is now projected to be around 56 aircraft. The Navy claims that the estimated 

shortfall has not increased much since last year even though the 

Department removed a total of 64 F–35B and F–35C aircraft from 

the future-years defense program (FYDP). The Navy’s estimate of 

the shortfall is based on conducting intensive management of the 

current inventory, making some reduction in force structure within 

Marine Corps aviation, and pursuing a service life extension program (SLEP) of 150 F/A–18 aircraft. 

The Navy intends that a SLEP would extend the life of select 

legacy F/A–18s from 8,600 to 10,000 flight hours. As yet, the Navy 

does not have sufficient data to predict the failure rate for aircraft 

being inducted into the SLEP program. Too high a failure rate 

could leave the Navy with too few aircraft that could benefit from 

the SLEP program, which would exacerbate the shortfall projections. 

The FYDP projection shows that the Navy intends to buy no 

more EA–18G aircraft, despite the fact that the Marine Corps intends to retire their fleet of EA–6B electronic warfare aircraft without fielding a direct replacement. 

Either a realization of a larger shortfall of strike fighter inventory, or a new requirement to replace the capability currently provided by the Marine Corps’ EA–6B aircraft could result in a deVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

mand for more aircraft beyond the 13 aircraft planned in fiscal 

year 2014. Therefore, the committee believes it would be prudent 

to provide some additional advance procurement funding in fiscal 

year 2013 to allow the Navy and the Defense Department time to 

get better data on the SLEP program and evaluate proposals to increase requirements for the EA–18G aircraft to account for the impending loss of the EA–6B aircraft. The committee recommends an 

additional $60.0 million for advance procurement for F/A–18E/F or 

EA–18G aircraft, to be obligated only if the Navy budget request 

for fiscal year 2014 for F–18 aircraft includes buying more than 13 

new aircraft. 

Close-in weapon system modifications 

The budget request included $59.3 million to purchase and install various modifications for the close-in weapon system (CIWS), 

including $9.7 million for reliability, maintainability and availability (RMA) kits. The CIWS is the primary, last ditch self defense 

system in the Navy fleet. 

The Navy has begun experiencing reliability problems with the 

latest CIWS version, the Block 1B. To deal with these issues, the 

Navy has developed the RMA kit that will fix known reliability 

problems and also deal with issues of parts obsolescence. The Navy 

can install the RMA kits dockside, without having to send the 

CIWS or its modules to the depot. In addition, installing these kits 

will allow the Navy to extend time between major CIWS overhauls 

to be extended, while still maintaining an acceptable level of operational availability. The committee believes that the Navy should 

move more expeditiously on fielding these kits to the fleet, and recommends an additional $7.7 million to buy 28 additional RMA kits. 

81mm, grenade, and demolition munitions reductions for excess 

The budget request included $759.5 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps (PANMC), of which $13.7 

million was for 81mm, $7.6 million was for grenades, and $2.0 million was for demolition munitions. 

The Government Accountability Office has identified $12.5 million in excess to requirements for the Marine Corps’ fiscal year 

2013 ammunition procurement request. Program officials stated 

that changes in Marine Corps’ methodology for determining ammunition requirements for training, changes to assumptions for calculating the necessary war reserves, and the large amount of ammunition already in inventory or expected for delivery, have made a 

portion of the fiscal year 2013 budget request for specific ammunition types excess to program needs. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $12.5 million in PANMC: $10.0 million in 81mm, $0.5 million in grenades, 

and $2.0 million in demolition munitions. 

Air Force 

Joint surveillance/target attack radar system 

The budget request included $59.3 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the E–8 modifications program and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

$24.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 

(RDT&E), Air Force for Joint Surveillance/Target Attack Radar 

Systems (JSTARS). Unlike previous years, the Air Force did not request procurement funding for the program to re-engine JSTARS 

aircraft. A portion of RDT&E funding supports continuing system 

development and demonstration (SDD) in the re-engining program. 

The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million to the 

budget request for APAF to restart the production line for the reengining program. 

The committee remains concerned by the slow progress of the reengining program despite years of significant congressional support. The Air Force decided to delay the re-engining program pending an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) of overall ground moving target indicator (GMTI) requirements. Last year, the Senate report accompanying S. 1235 (S. Rept. 112–26) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 said, ‘‘Regardless of what that 

study concludes, however, the committee believes that re-engining 

the JSTARS fleet makes sense. . . . However, even if the Air Force 

study were to conclude that some new system or combination of 

systems would provide better broad area GMTI for the future, it is 

hard to imagine that another alternative would actually begin complete fielding of a JSTARS replacement capability before the reengining pays for itself.’’ 

Therefore, the committee was troubled that funding authorized 

and appropriated for re-engining over the past several years has either been reprogrammed or remains unspent. Last year, the committee recommended a provision requiring the Air Force Audit 

Agency to submit to the congressional defense committees the results of a financial audit of the funds previously authorized and appropriated for the JSTARS aircraft re-engining program. The committee still has not received the results of that audit. 

The Air Force has still not produced the AoA either, so the budget remains silent on course of action for modernizing GMTI capability. However, in testimony before the committee on March 22, 

2012, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz confirmed 

that the Air Force was going to stick with the E–8C program, testifying, ‘‘Notwithstanding the AoA . . . we will continue with the 

combination of the JSTARS GMTI capability, with the Block 40 

Global Hawk.’’ This prospect was confirmed in the Department of 

Defense’s Annual Aviation Inventory and Funding Plan for Fiscal 

Years 2013–2042, which indicated that the Department has no alternatives to JSTARS expected to emerge in that 30-year period. 

Since the Air Force will now clearly be keeping the E–8C aircraft 

for the foreseeable future, the committee believes it is even more 

critical that the Air Force budget sufficient funds to sustain 

JSTARS for the long term. The committee understands the need to 

proceed carefully through re-engining SDD to collect all necessary 

data to inform decisions about this program, as well as the difficulties associated with restarting the re-engining process on a small 

fleet of aircraft in a constant state of high operational tempo. 

However, the committee believes that proceeding with reengining of the JSTARS fleet to improve performance and fuel efficiency is consistent with warfighter requirements and Air Force 

priorities. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

Also, if the Air Force continues to operate the JSTARS platform 

for the foreseeable future, the Service will have to modernize other 

aspects of the JSTARS airframe and system. To keep the JSTARS 

system viable and avoid erosion in performance, the Air Force will 

have to pursue such modernization efforts as upgrading radars, replacing diminishing manufacturing source items (including those 

for primary mission equipment and avionics), and improving communications and target identification systems. From that perspective, the committee is concerned that the current future-years defense program (FYDP) includes minimal funding for JSTARS modernization efforts. Therefore, the committee believes the Air Force 

should devote increased funding toward JSTARS modernization in 

the next FYDP to ensure that the JSTARS aircraft continue to fly 

and operate for the foreseeable future, without any decrease in 

mission capable rates or system performance. 

Defense-wide 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 

The budget request included $460.7 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, for procurement of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors. The committee notes that the THAAD 

interceptor system has experienced difficulties with its production 

process and has not yet been able to achieve the planned production rate of four interceptors per month. Over the past 2 years, this 

has led Congress to reduce funds below the level requested for 

THAAD interceptor procurement by nearly $400.0 million. As a result of these production challenges, the schedule for THAAD interceptor deliveries has been delayed and reduced significantly. 

In the budget request, the Department of Defense would reduce 

the planned number of THAAD batteries in the future-years defense program (FYDP) from 9 to 6, and reduce the corresponding 

number of THAAD interceptors by 157. Although the Department 

maintains its previous procurement objective of 503 THAAD interceptors, this level would not be achieved until after the FYDP. According to LTG Richard Formica, the Commander of U.S. Army 

Space and Missile Defense Command, and Commander of the Joint 

Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense, 

the decision to reduce THAAD procurement during the FYDP was 

made by a broad range of senior defense and military officials after 

careful consideration of the integrated missile defense priorities of 

the combatant commanders and the need to maintain a balance between homeland defense and regional missile defense investments 

and capabilities. 

The committee notes that, as LTG Formica testified, ‘‘the demand for THAAD and TPY–2 radars—like the demand for other 

missile defense assets—continues to increase and has not been reduced by combatant commanders.’’ The committee believes that increasing the number of THAAD interceptors is the most cost-effective and affordable way to provide increased capability to regional 

combatant commanders. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million to Procurement, Defense-wide, for procurement of additional 

THAAD interceptors. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

Special operations aviation 

The budget request included $99.8 million for the procurement of seven Aviation Foreign Internal Defense (AvFID) aircraft and $7.5 

million for low cost modifications to U–28 aircraft in Procurement, 

Defense-wide. 

Last year, the congressional defense committees expressed concern about the AvFID and Non-Standard Aviation (NSAv) programs and required a report from the Commander of U.S. Special 

Operations Command (USSOCOM) describing these programs, justifying their requirement, and analyzing efficiencies that could be 

gained from procuring common special operations aviation platforms, among other things. On March 5, 2012, the Commander of 

USSOCOM delivered the required report to the congressional defense committees with a revised strategy that combines special operations AvFID and NSAv missions while gaining additional 

manned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. The committee supports this revised strategy because it 

provides training and maintenance efficiencies through the procurement of multi-mission platforms for AvFID and NSAv missions, while also increasing much needed ISR capacity to support 

deployed special operations forces. 

Consistent with the new strategy outlined by the Commander of USSOCOM, the committee recommends a transfer of $62.8 million 

within Procurement, Defense-wide, from the Non-Standard Aviation budget line to the U–28 budget line. This transfer would reduce AvFID procurement from seven to two aircraft and increase 

the quantity of U–28 aircraft by four. Additionally, the committee 

supports use of previously authorized funds to re-mission previously acquired aircraft consistent with the strategy laid out by 

the Commander of USSOCOM. 

High definition full motion video 

The budget request included no funding in Procurement, Defense-wide, for high definition full motion video (HD FMV) capabilities for airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

(ISR) platforms. The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has indicated that the requirement for HD 

FMV was not quantified until after the fiscal year 2013 budget request was finalized and has identified it as the only fiscal year 

2013 unfunded requirement for special operations forces. 

In testimony before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 

Capabilities on March 27, 2012, the Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict stated ‘‘the high definition capability is a game changer for decision makers’’ because it 

provides a greater degree of clarity in making decisions regarding 

the use of force, while minimizing the risk of collateral damage. 

Additionally, the Commander of USSOCOM has told the committee 

‘‘Recent operational success highlighted the need for the HD FMV 

capability to be fielded on special operations platforms as soon as 

possible.’’ 

The committee recommends total increases of $142.4 million in 

Procurement, Defense-wide, $16.5 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, and $0.6 million in Research, Development, 

Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for the fielding of additional 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

HD FMV capabilities. The committee is aware that USSOCOM intends to begin to address this urgent requirement using previously 

authorized and appropriated funds, including $9.5 million in Combat Mission Requirements funds and a $29.6 million Above Threshold Reprogramming request. 

Items of Special Interest 

Common remotely operated weapon station 

The committee notes that funding for the common remotely operated weapon station (CROWS) has been transferred from the Overseas Contingency Operations budget to the Weapons and Tracked 

Combat Vehicles appropriation in the Army’s base budget for fiscal 

year 2013. The committee is also aware that the Army released a 

request for proposals in January 2012, to initiate a competition for 

the next-generation of CROWS systems with contract award projected for early in fiscal year 2013. 

The committee supports this competitive acquisition strategy; 

however, the Army has not yet decided on a CROWS basis of issue 

plan and therefore there is uncertainty with respect to the overall 

Army acquisition objective for this system. The committee is aware 

that the Army currently has over 6,400 CROWS systems in its inventory and estimates for an acquisition objective vary from as few 

as just over 11,000 to as many as 14,000. 

The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (ASA–ALT) to notify the congressional defense committees when decisions are made that establish a CROWS basis of issue plan and an acquisition objective. Following notification, the ASA–ALT shall provide a briefing that describes the CROWS acquisition strategy including a full and open 

competition, Army acquisition objective, other services’ acquisition 

objectives, if any, as well as a funding profile and schedule through 

the future-years defense program. 

Impact of Global Hawk Block 30 termination 

The committee directs that the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics provide a briefing to the congressional defense and intelligence committees on the likely impact 

of the termination on the MQ–4C Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance System (BAMS) program no later than July 31, 2012. 

The committee understands that the unit price of the BAMS aircraft could also be affected by decisions on the continued production of Global Hawk Block 40 aircraft for the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) program 

and for the Air Force. Therefore, the committee would also like to 

understand the impact on the unit price of BAMS if the NATO 

AGS program does not proceed with the acquisition of five Global 

Hawk aircraft, or if the Air Force terminates its Block 40 program, 

or if both of these contingencies were to occur. 

Integrated base defense 

The committee is aware of Department of Defense efforts to develop and field technologies that address threats to forward stationed and deployed military installations as well as those within 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

the United States. The committee is encouraged by the inclusion of 

funds for integrated base defense programs in the fiscal year 2013 

budget and the potential of a variety of technologies that could provide joint, interoperable force protection systems and better protect 

our installations, regardless of size, with increased efficiency and 

affordability. 

The committee directs that the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, or his designee, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, provide the 

congressional defense committees with a briefing not later than 

March 31, 2013, on the Department of Defense’s requirements determination and technology development, acquisition, and fielding 

plans to provide capabilities to improve integrated base defense 

systems. 

Joint strike fighter program 

Department of Defense (DOD) officials have testified that the F– 

35 ‘‘Lightning II’’ Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is the most 

concurrent program in DOD recent experience. Concurrency refers 

to the overlap between system development and testing, and production. Excessive concurrency arises when a program’s development and production overlap to the extent that major, expensive 

changes identified in testing have to be made in production items 

after they are on the production line or after they are delivered. 

According to JSF’s Program Executive Officer, ‘‘Fundamentally, 

that was a miscalculation . . . You’d like to take the keys to your 

shiny new jet and give it to the fleet with all the capability and 

all the service life they want. What we’re doing is, we’re taking the 

keys to the shiny new jet, giving it to the fleet and saying, ‘Give 

me that jet back in the first year. I’ve got to go take it up to this 

depot for a couple of months and tear into it and put in some structural mods, because if I don’t, we’re not going to be able to fly it 

more than a couple, three, four, five years.’ That’s what concurrency is doing to us.’’ 

The Acting Under Secretary of Defense of Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics was considerably more pointed in his assessment, referring to the decision made years ago to put JSF into production before flight testing had started as ‘‘acquisition malpractice.’’ He noted that the program was started with ‘‘the optimistic prediction that we were good enough at modeling and simulation that we would not find problems in flight test . . . That was 

wrong, and now we are paying for that.’’ 

The committee agrees with these appraisals and views them as 

a valuable starting point that may help ensure that the additional 

33 months and $7.9 billion that DOD has added to the previous 

JSF development plan will result in a sustainable program capable 

of delivering the required capability to the warfighter. The committee remains concerned that, even with these changes, the level 

of concurrency risk that still resides in the program may be excessive. 

Because of concern about the lack of a coherent concurrency 

change management strategy in the JSF program, the committee 

declined to approve DOD’s request to reprogram funds from other 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

programs to cover part of a roughly $771.0 million cost overrun in 

low-rate initial production lots (LRIP) lots 1 through 3. 

Unfortunately, the cost growth problem persists. As of March 2012, DOD estimates total concurrency costs for LRIP–1 at $50.1 

million; LRIP–2, $300.3 million; LRIP–3, $319.1 million; and 

LRIP–4, $523.3 million. The committee does not find this trend encouraging and believes that the program must ensure that these 

costs are managed more effectively and that the prime contractor 

share equitably in them. 

In addition to concurrency change management, the committee is 

concerned about the JSF program’s lack of progress in software development. The most recent Selected Acquisition Report for this 

program identified this issue as ‘‘a significant area of focus,’’ Challenges facing efforts to develop and integrate software Block 1B 

and Block 2A appear to be affecting the successful delivery of Block 

2B capability. While the program has built capacity in the integrated master schedule for discovering and dealing with problems 

in the development of Blocks 2 and 3, the potential cascading effect 

of failures to deliver software capability on the balance of a major 

developmental program like JSF can be particularly pernicious. 

The committee, therefore, believes that the contracting strategy 

for this program should target improved performance in the development of software to ensure that the Block 2A schedule will be 

met. To ensure the dependable delivery of needed software capability, the Joint Program Office (JPO) and the prime contractor 

must work collaboratively to properly assess software maturity for 

readiness to proceed to flight-testing and for production-release; 

provide for sufficient schedule capacity to support the production 

and delivery of unscheduled software builds; move towards automatically generated, data-driven capability maturity metrics across 

the entire air-system; and structure the program’s management of 

software development to enable premeditated trades among capability, cost, and schedule. 

The committee is similarly concerned about production quality 

and whether it is sufficient to ensure the delivery of JSF aircraft 

to the U.S. and its allies at an affordable price. The average rate 

of scrap, rework, and repair at the prime contractor’s main manufacturing facility from 2009 through the first 2 months of 2012 

gives rise to concern. Inattention to production quality also appears 

to have contributed to discovery of a potentially serious issue with 

an aperture on the aircraft critical to its electronic warfare capability. While the full extent of this problem is presently unknown, 

it underscores the fact that DOD and the contractor team must rigorously manage production quality. 

With the foregoing in mind, the committee is hopeful about an 

approach that DOD has taken to try to address some of the issues 

described above. Under this approach, called a ‘‘development dial’’ 

or ‘‘dial-up’’ approach, DOD would modulate its purchase of future 

aircraft for which funding has been authorized and appropriated 

based on how the prime contractor performs in the areas of concurrency risk reduction, software development, flight-testing, and 

durability. 

While the committee believe this approach holds merit, it also believes that the approach’s success in incentivizing desired conVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

tractor performance will require that DOD identify a very clear, 

specific, and realistically achievable set of performance criteria upfront. The specificity of these criteria should be sufficient to convey 

to the prime contractor what constitutes desired performance and 

how its performance, once rendered, would be assessed. The committee directs DOD to provide these criteria to the congressional 

defense committees before they are actually implemented so that 

the committees may assess their efficacy. 

Paladin integrated management program 

The committee has observed over many years and programs that 

the challenges of development, testing, production, and fielding 

schedules must be carefully estimated and tradeoffs managed to 

avoid increasing risk and cost to the overall program. In the case 

of the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) program, however, 

the committee recognizes the potential to accelerate elements of the 

development and production schedules that could result in the earlier delivery of improved artillery capability to the Army. According 

to the Army’s current production schedule, the PIM program will 

receive a Milestone C decision in June 2013, and a full-rate production decision in January 2017. The committee is aware that the 

Army is conducting a business case analysis to identify and assess 

options with respect to the cost effectiveness of the program’s 

schedule, the health and readiness of the industrial base, and opportunities, if any, to accelerate development, production, and fielding of this system. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 30 days of the 

completion of the business case analysis. The report shall include 

delineation and an assessment of feasible and affordable courses of 

action that includes contract and accelerated schedule options and 

a detailed explanation of any program decisions that result from 

the business case analysis. 

Rotary-wing planning tools 

The committee is aware that the Army has no documented requirement for a rotary wing performance mission planning tool but 

that a variety of tools and capabilities are available that could increase the safety and effectiveness of helicopter operations. The 

committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing 

and corresponding data to the congressional defense committees by 

January 31, 2013, assessing the Army’s current helicopter operations mission planning tools and capabilities, and efforts to develop or acquire such capabilities if required, suitable, effective, 

and affordable. 

Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget implication 

The administration’s budget request for national defense discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee 

on Armed Services for fiscal year 2013 was $631.6 billion. Of this 

amount, $525.3 billion was requested for base Department of Defense programs, $88.5 billion was requested for overseas contingency operations, and $17.8 billion was requested for national secuVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

rity programs in the Department of Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. 

The bill authorizes $631.4 billion in fiscal year 2013, including 

$525.8 billion for base Department of Defense programs, $88.2 billion for overseas contingency operations, and $17.3 billion for national security programs in the Department of Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. 

The administration’s fiscal year 2013 budget for national defense 

also included discretionary programs outside the jurisdiction of the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services, discretionary programs that 

do not require further authorization, and mandatory programs that 

are in current law. When these programs are added to the administration’s budget the request for national defense totaled $646.7 billion. 

The following two tables summarize the direct authorizations 

and the equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2013 defense programs. The first table summarizes committee action on 

the authorizations within the jurisdiction of this committee. It includes the authorization for spending from the trust fund of the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home which is outside the national defense budget function. The second table summarizes the total budget authority implication for national defense by adding funding for 

items that are not within the jurisdiction of this committee or do 

not require an annual authorization. 

Use of advance procurement for major systems 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has traditionally requested 

advance procurement funding to support the efficient procurement 

and production rates for significant annual buys and multiyear 

purchases of weapon systems and equipment. The fiscal year 2012 

budget request did not include any advance procurement funding 

for C–130J aircraft the Air Force intended to purchase in fiscal 

year 2013. However, Congress added $120.0 million for this purpose in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 

112–74), based on information that such advance procurement 

would reduce overall costs of the program. 

In the fiscal year 2013 budget request, the Air Force again failed 

to ask for advance procurement funding for the 27 HC/MC/AC– 

130J aircraft the Department intends to purchase in fiscal year 

2014. In responding to questions from the committee last year, 

DOD indicated that adding advance procurement funding for C– 

130J aircraft in fiscal year 2012 could result in net savings to the 

government. Also, internal Air Force documents asserted that failure to include advance procurement funding would result in increased unit cost and delayed delivery of aircraft to the warfighter. 

The committee believes that DOD should apply traditional advance procurement funding practices consistently across all DOD 

aircraft procurement programs, particularly when having advance 

procurement funding would result in more efficient production and 

lower costs. The committee expects that DOD will explain the rationale for any departure from the normal practice of providing advance procurement funding, including why such a departure is 

more efficient or more effective. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

U.S. Special Operations Command Budget line items 

The committee notes that in recent years the number of budget 

line items associated with U.S. Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM) research and development and procurement activities 

has grown. The committee believes adequate fidelity in 

USSOCOM’s budget justification documents is critical to performance of its oversight responsibilities. However, the committee also 

understands that congressionally imposed reprogramming thresholds may, in some cases, have a disparate impact on USSOCOM as 

compared to the military departments because of the number of 

relatively small USSOCOM budget line items, thereby reducing 

USSOCOM’s budget flexibility to meet command requirements. The 

committee would welcome a proposal from USSOCOM to address 

this issue by consolidating appropriate budget line items in future 

years, while providing equal or better fidelity in the budget justification documents to the congressional defense committees. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(37) 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section 4201 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Next Generation Foundry for the Defense Microelectronics 

Activity (sec. 211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Department of Defense from executing any funds in PE 603720S 

for the 90 nanometer Next Generation Foundry until 60 days after 

the Department delivers to the congressional defense committees a 

defense microelectronics strategy and a full life cycle cost estimate 

of the Defense Microelectronics Activity’s Next Generation Foundry. This strategy, as well as the committee’s recommendation to decrease funds available in this program element, are described elsewhere in this report. 

Advanced rotorcraft initiative (sec. 212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) to develop and submit a strategy to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act on the use of integrated platform design teams 

and agile prototyping approaches for the development of advanced 

rotorcraft capabilities. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

recently stated that increasing prototyping of advanced technology 

capabilities is a potential approach to be able to keep the technical 

expertise of the defense industrial base exercised in a reduced 

budgetary environment. With declining budgets leading to reduced 

numbers of acquisition programs and quantities of weapon systems, it is crucial that design experience and skills in the various 

sectors of the defense industrial base be preserved. These skills are 

important not only to be readily available when the Department requires them, but the ability to sustain and pass these skills on to 

successive generations of engineers is intertwined intimately with 

the challenges of attracting and retaining the best and brightest 

engineers and technicians to work in both the public and private 

sectors of the national security enterprise. Such talent will not be 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

recruited or retained without the key attraction of multiple opportunities for very challenging work over the course of one’s professional career. 

One of the key challenges facing the defense industrial base 

today is that the design and development cycles of major defense 

acquisition programs (MDAP) are so protracted. The skills typically 

acquired and honed through multiple design cycles are not being 

adequately learned. The result is that many of the MDAPs are behind schedule and above cost because the design and development 

teams are actually doing ‘‘on the job training’’. Such a situation is 

far from acceptable, and hence the acknowledgement that the DOD 

needs to develop a comprehensive strategy identifying and growing 

integrated platform design teams. Providing these teams the opportunity to exercise their skills in a series of relatively frequent 

prototyping activities is long overdue. 

The Department needs to go beyond the rhetoric of occasional 

speeches and needs to undertake a serious effort to develop a comprehensive strategy that encompasses elements within USD(AT&L) 

including the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)) and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, as well as the 

services. Two key elements that must be addressed in such a strategy are integrated platform design teams and agile prototyping activities. 

Depending upon the defense industrial base sector, integrated 

platform design teams should be viewed as critical national assets. 

They can provide the capability to quickly develop and field revolutionary defense capabilities. These teams are small, by nature, 

typically consisting of an engineering and design core of less than 

50 people. This core group is prized for its cross-disciplinary nature, breadth of knowledge, and past experience with successfully 

shepherding defense products all the way from concept to initial 

fielding. 

As demonstrated in the ‘‘golden age’’ of aerospace development, 

integrated platform design teams were most effectively built and 

managed by running complex, integrated development projects in 

rapid succession, preferably with 1–4 year timelines. The most effective projects involved complex, integrated systems or platforms 

(such as complete aircraft), which also drove advancement of subsystems and component technologies beyond what was available 

off-the-shelf commercially. 

Closing the design-to-initial operations cycle is essential to building and maintaining design capabilities. The successful core design 

team is typically surrounded by talented technicians and operators. 

In this manner, engineering, manufacturing, testing, and operations capabilities are tightly integrated without organizational or 

communications barriers. The close interactions between these various areas of expertise promote design validation through realworld operational experimentation. 

Lastly, it is imperative that the core engineers work under 

streamlined management, driven to motivate and empower the 

team. To foster rapid technological advances, the team must be 

granted significant requirements leeway and be insulated from exVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

cessive pressures of process, thus focusing entirely on time and 

cost-effective development and fielding. 

In the absence of sufficient new major defense acquisition programs, a mechanism to keep integrated platform design teams exercised is the use of agile prototyping. This concept, sometimes referred to as exploratory development, is a framework to ensure that 

rapid, higher risk technology development can continue without the 

linkages to formal requirements and the attendant commitment to 

production and a formal acquisition program. In the historical parlance of aeronautics, X-planes have been the classic example. The 

point of such technology development activities is not to produce 

systems that have a formal operational requirement, but to create 

technology options and reduce technical risk for whenever formal 

operational and programmatic requirements emerge in the future. 

One area of the defense industrial base that has not seen significant new innovations is rotorcraft. Over the last decade, rotorcraft 

have been crucial in our war fighting operations. The committee 

believes that among the various defense industrial base sectors, the 

preservation of integrated platform design teams and the use of 

agile prototyping is most needed in this sector. The committee observes that it has been over 2 decades since the last completely 

new DOD rotorcraft, the V–22 Osprey, was developed. 

Last year, the committee expressed its views on the state of 

DOD’s rotorcraft science and technology (S&T) activities in its report. The committee continues to express concern over the overall 

state of DOD’s rotorcraft S&T programs. Specifically, the committee strongly believes that the DOD is not engaging to the maximum possible extent in a coordinated fashion with its limited resources with the broadest range of industry and academia to foster 

innovative concepts for the next-generation of rotorcraft. The committee acknowledges the efforts that the ASD(R&E) is taking to coordinate the DOD’s rotorcraft S&T activities, primarily by the 

Army, and its claims that it is making progress on the S&T plan 

in the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Strategic Plan. 

USD(AT&L)’s Vertical Lift Consortium (VLC)—self-formed by industry over 2 years ago—is not being exercised adequately by the 

services. 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 VLC is contracted with the 

DOD through the establishment of an Other Transaction Authority 

(OTA). The OTA allows the formation of competitive teams to rapidly develop and flight demonstrate innovative vertical lift technologies that address capability gaps identified in the DOD FVL 

Strategic Plan such as performance, survivability, and affordability. 

The committee understands the DOD is completing an overdue report on the VLC that was called for by the Committee on Armed 

Services of the House of Representatives last year that was due 

April 1, 2012. 

The Army is pursuing its Joint Multi-role (JMR) development 

program—without funding from other services. Absent further 

funding, current plans envision only one technology demonstrator 

in the 2017–2020 timeframe and initial fielding of a platform in the 

2030 timeframe. The committee is concerned that only a single 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

technology demonstrator will fly and that pressures will be such 

that this vehicle will ultimately turn into the platform for the program of record—thus suppressing a truly competitive process for 

innovative concepts. Furthermore, the committee strongly urges 

that the Army develop Technology Capability Enabled Demonstrations, as it has for soldier-centric technologies, for advancing rotorcraft capabilities. 

In addition, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA) has launched an X-Plane Rotorcraft program in fiscal 

year 2013 and it remains to be seen what this program will lead 

to. The committee strongly urges DARPA to structure its X-Plane 

Rotorcraft program to develop specific performance steps beyond 

the Army’s desired attributes for platforms under the JMR program. DARPA should also consider expanding its X-Plane Rotorcraft program to provide for at least two competing teams. In addition, the committee urges DARPA to investigate how advances that 

it is making in advanced manufacturing can be applicable to the 

rotorcraft sector. 

Given the situation depicted above, the committee directs that 

the USD(AT&L), working with the services and DARPA, develop 

and submit to the congressional defense committees a strategy that 

will address measures that DOD will take to retain—and where appropriate—develop, integrated platform design teams. Given the 

complexity of this problem, this strategy shall focus initially on the 

rotorcraft sector. The strategy shall also address how agile prototyping practices and programs can be established, including rotorcraft X-planes, and what level of resources would be required. The 

strategy should consider possibly restructuring the Army’s JMR 

program to include more technology demonstration platforms with 

challenge goals of significant reductions in cost and time to flight. 

Lastly, the strategy should also address how other innovative approaches such as competitive prize awards can be applied. The 

committee found it disappointing that in a report by the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy, dated March 2012, ‘‘Implementation 

of Federal Prize Authority: Progress Report’’, there was only one 

example of DOD using this prize authority. The strategy should address how prizes could be potentially used to address some challenge problems, primarily for unmanned rotorcraft, such as: nap-ofearth automated flight, urban operation near buildings, slope landings, automated autorotation or power-off recovery, and automated 

selection of landing areas. 

In the development of this strategy, the committee directs the 

USD(AT&L) to work with the VLC for their inputs and to consider 

both manned and unmanned rotorcraft across the broad range of 

DOD missions. 

Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Navy research, development, test, and evaluation funds (sec. 213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 

Secretary of the Navy to use, subject to appropriations, prior year 

funds that have been made available from program cancellations 

reflected in the fiscal 2013 budget request. The funds available 

from cancellations are as follows: 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

Program Recommended Amount 

(Dollars in millions) 

Medium-range Maritime Unmanned Aerial System ............................................................................. $8.8 

Total ............................................................................................................................................. $8.8 

Authority for Department of Defense laboratories to enter 

into education partnerships with educational institutions in United States territories and possessions (sec. 

214) 

The committee recommends a provision, based upon a Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would authorize the directors of defense laboratories to enter into education partnership 

agreements with educational institutions in United States territories and possessions. Currently, a defense laboratory can only 

enter into an education partnership with educational institutions 

in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

This provision will increase opportunities for defense laboratories 

to interact with additional educational institutions to further 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics objectives. In 

addition, this provision would provide a potential opportunity for 

educational institutions in the U.S. territories and possessions to 

contribute to the national defense through a partnership with a Department of Defense laboratory. 

Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Air Force research, development, test, and evaluation funds (sec. 215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 

Secretary of the Air Force to use, subject to appropriations, prior 

year funds that have been made available from program cancellations reflected in the fiscal 2013 budget request. The funds available from cancellations are as follows: 

Program Recommended Amount 

(Dollars in millions) 

C–130 avionics modernization program .............................................................................................. $6.5 

Miniature air-launched decoy, phase II ............................................................................................... 7.9 

RQ–4 Global Hawk Block 30 ................................................................................................................ 64.0 

Total ............................................................................................................................................. $78.4 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Matters 

Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress on homeland ballistic missile defense, and would 

require a report on the status of efforts to improve the homeland 

defense capability of the United States. 

The committee notes that the first policy priority described in the 

February 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review is to continue providing homeland ballistic missile defense against the potential future threat of limited ballistic missile attack from nations such as 

North Korea and Iran. The currently deployed Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, with 30 Ground-Based Interceptors 

deployed in Alaska and California, provides protection of the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

United States against such future threats. This policy relies on two 

approaches: 1) improving the reliability and performance of the 

GMD system, particularly its Ground-Based Interceptors; and 2) 

taking prudent steps to hedge against the possibility that the 

threat might grow faster or larger than anticipated. The Department of Defense is taking significant steps on both approaches. The 

provision would require the Department to report on the steps it 

is taking on both approaches, including the results of its efforts to 

demonstrate in flight testing the correction to the problem that 

caused the GMD flight test failure of December 2010. 

Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress on regional ballistic missile defense, and would 

require a report on the European Phased Adaptive Approach to 

missile defense and other regional missile defense efforts of the 

United States. 

The committee notes that the threat to forward-deployed U.S. 

forces, allies and partners from regional ballistic missiles, particularly from Iran and North Korea, is serious and growing rapidly. 

Consequently, the Department of Defense has ‘‘made defending 

against near-term regional threats a top priority in our missile defense plans, programs and capabilities,’’ as Secretary of Defense 

Robert Gates stated in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review of February 2010. 

The committee believes the Department of Defense has an obligation to provide force protection to forward-deployed U.S. forces, 

assets, and facilities, and to defend allies, from the threat of regional ballistic missile attack. The Department is implementing a 

set of programs and efforts to enhance U.S. and allied capabilities 

to defend against such regional ballistic missiles, especially against 

Iran and North Korea. These efforts, which include the European 

Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense and similar phased 

and adaptive efforts tailored to the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region, are essential to providing force protection for our deployed forces. These efforts are balanced with programs to enhance 

homeland defense, and are designed to meet the integrated missile 

defense priorities of the geographic combatant commands. Some of 

the regional missile defense capabilities, such as forward-deployed 

AN/TPY–2 missile defense radars in Japan and Turkey, and development of the Standard Missile–3 Block IIB interceptor missile, are 

intended to enhance homeland defense. 

The Department also has numerous programs of cooperation 

with international partners to improve regional missile defense capabilities, including our North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, 

Israel, and Japan, among others. The committee supports these regional missile defense programs and partnerships, and believes 

they are an important component of regional security and stability. 

Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress in support of efforts of the United States to pursue missile defense cooperation with Russia that would enhance 

the security of the United States, its North Atlantic Treaty OrganiVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

zation (NATO) allies, and Russia, particularly against missile 

threats from Iran. The provision states that the United States 

should pursue such cooperation in a manner that does not in any 

way limit United States missile defenses and that ensures the protection of United States classified information. The provision also 

states the view that the United States should not provide Russia 

with sensitive missile defense information that would in any way 

compromise United States national security, including ‘‘hit-to-kill’’ 

technology and interceptor telemetry. 

The committee notes that, for more than a decade, the United 

States has been pursuing and discussing, cooperation with Russia 

on shared early warning and ballistic missile defense issues. Congress has supported such efforts, and section 221 of the Ike Skelton 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 

Law 111–383) states the sense of Congress ‘‘to support the efforts 

of the United States government and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to pursue cooperation with the Russian Federation on 

ballistic missile defense relative to Iranian missile threats.’’ 

In addition to United States bilateral efforts with Russia on missile defense cooperation, NATO has undertaken efforts to seek such 

cooperation with Russia. At the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, 

NATO committed to ‘‘actively seek cooperation on missile defense 

with Russia,’’ and declared that ‘‘NATO-Russia cooperation is of 

strategic importance,’’ and that ‘‘the security of the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization and Russia is intertwined.’’ 

The committee believes that missile defense cooperation with 

Russia could enhance the security of the United States, and could 

send a strong signal to Iran that the United States and Russia are 

joined in their opposition to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. 

The committee commends the administration for seeking such cooperation, and for its commitment to take the steps necessary to 

ensure that United States information is adequately safeguarded, 

including its commitment to ‘‘not provide Russia with sensitive information that would in any way compromise our national security, 

including hit-to-kill technology and interceptor telemetry,’’ as stated by Robert Nabors, Assistant to the President and Director of the 

Office of Legislative Affairs in a letter dated April 13, 2012. 

Next-generation Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (sec. 234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency to develop a long-term plan 

for the Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) that addresses both 

modifications and enhancements to the current EKV and options 

for the competitive development of a next-generation EKV for the 

Ground-Based Interceptor of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense 

system and any other interceptor that might be developed for the 

defense of the United States against long-range ballistic missiles. 

The provision would also require the Director to submit a report to 

Congress setting forth the plan and an estimate of the cost and 

schedule of implementing the plan. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

Modernization of the Patriot air and missile defense system 

(sec. 235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to submit to the congressional 

defensecommittees a plan for support of requirements in connection 

with the modernization of the Patriot air and missile defense system. The plan would also include an assessment of the integrated 

air and missile defense capabilities required to meet the demands 

of evolving and emerging threats, and a plan for achieving reductions in the life cycle cost of the Patriot system. 

Medium Extended Air Defense System (sec. 236) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2013 funds for the Medium 

Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). 

Section 235 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) limited the obligation or expenditure of more than 25 percent of the fiscal year 2012 funds authorized for MEADS until the Department of Defense submitted to the 

congressional defense committees a plan to use such funds as final 

obligations for the MEADS program. The Department submitted 

that plan in April 2012, as described elsewhere in this report. 

Although the budget request included $400.9 million for the 

MEADS program, the committee believes it would be inconsistent 

with section 235 to authorize additional funds for MEADS, or to 

allow additional funds to be obligated or expended for MEADS. 

The committee is aware that additional funding would be needed 

for the Army to continue providing security and technology transfer 

support for sensitive MEADS-related technology and equipment 

furnished by the United States to Germany and Italy on a temporary basis, in the event Germany and Italy choose to proceed 

without the United States for an additional year of MEADS design 

and development. 

The committee understands the importance of ensuring the necessary security and technology transfer support for this sensitive 

technology and equipment until it is returned to the United States, 

and does not intend to hinder the ability of the Army to provide 

such security. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the 

committee, within 30 days after the enactment of this Act, a revised estimate as to how much it would cost for the United States 

MEADS National Program Office to provide appropriate oversight 

and security of the sensitive U.S. Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) relative to the program. The committee further directs 

the Secretary to provide the committee with a plan for how the 

Army intends to budget for these costs through fiscal year 2013 utilizing funds authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2012. 

The committee is aware of the possibility that additional legislative authority may be necessary to permit the Army to ensure continued security and technology transfer support for the sensitive 

GFE. The committee directs the Army to provide the committee 

with any views on this matter on an expedited basis, to permit 

early committee consideration of such views. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

Availability of funds for Iron Dome short-range rocket defense program (sec. 237) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide up to $210.0 million in fiscal year 

2013 funds to the Government of Israel for the Iron Dome shortrange rocket defense system. 

After the budget request was submitted, the Department of Defense announced it would submit a request for additional funding 

to provide to the Government of Israel to procure additional Iron 

Dome short-range rocket defense systems. Although the Department has not yet submitted the request, the committee understands that the fiscal year 2013 funding request will be for $210.0 

million. The committee is aware of reports that the request being 

considered by the Department could include funding of as much as 

$680.0 million over multiple fiscal years, including fiscal year 2013. 

The committee looks forward to receiving the Department’s request, and to continuing its support for Israel’s missile defense programs, as described elsewhere in this report. 

The committee notes that Israel has recently come under fire 

from short-range rockets from the Gaza strip. Israel currently has 

three operational Iron Dome batteries, and a fourth battery nearing deployment. However, these existing batteries do not provide 

adequate protection for the populated areas in Israel within range 

of short-range rocket attacks. The funding authorized in the provision would permit Israel to acquire additional Iron Dome systems 

to provide protection for more of its population against recurring 

short-range rocket attacks. 

Subtitle D—Reports 

Mission packages for the littoral combat ship (sec. 251) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to produce a report, in consultation with the 

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, on the mine countermeasures warfare, antisubmarine warfare, and surface warfare 

mission packages for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). 

The Secretary’s report would be required, at a minimum, to set 

forth the following: 

(1) A plan for the Mission Packages demonstrating that Preliminary Design Review for every capability increment precedes Milestone B or equivalent approval for that increment; 

(2) A plan for demonstrating that the capability increment 

for each Mission Package, combined with a Littoral Combat 

Ship, on the basis of a Preliminary Design Review and postPreliminary Design Review assessment, will achieve the capability specified for that increment; and 

(3) A plan for demonstrating the survivability and lethality 

of the Littoral Combat Ship with its Mission Packages sufficiently early in the development phase of the system to minimize costs of concurrency. 

The committee remains concerned about this program’s ability to 

deliver combat-ready LCS when our sailors need them in support 

of worldwide maritime operations. The development and fielding of 

these mission module capabilities will require the Navy to field a 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

range of 24 critical technologies, including sensors, vehicles, and 

weapons. In addition, there have been perturbations in the objective systems to be deployed in the mission modules, as the Navy 

is replacing some items because of poor performance or increasing 

costs. All of this argues for pursuing the regular order in defining, 

developing, testing, and fielding incremental improvements in capability for the LCS. This provision will make it clear that the 

Navy should follow a regular, transparent process in managing the 

mission module program. 

Comptroller General of the United States annual reports on 

the acquisition program for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (sec. 252) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General to conduct an annual review of the Marine 

Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle acquisition program, and to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 

15 of each year, from 2013 until the award of the first contract for 

full rate production. Where appropriate and feasible, each report 

shall assess whether the program is meeting cost, schedule, performance, and risk mitigation goals; the progress and results of developmental and operational testing and plans to correct any shortcomings in vehicle performance, operational effectiveness, reliability, suitability, and safety; the procurement plans, production 

results, and efforts to improve manufacturing efficiency and supplier performance; the acquisition strategy, including whether it 

complies with acquisition management best practices and the acquisition policies and regulations of the Department of Defense; 

and, the risks reflected in the integrated master schedule and test 

and evaluation master plan related to probability of success, funding required for the vehicle compared to funding programmed, and 

development and production concurrency. In addition, the first report shall assess the sufficiency and objectivity of the analysis of 

alternatives, the initial capabilities document, and the capability 

development document. 

While the committee fully supports the Marine Corps’ efforts to 

develop and field a capable replacement for its Vietnam-era Assault 

Amphibious Vehicle, the committee is mindful of the cost increases, 

schedule delays, and performance problems associated with the 

Marine Corps’ last attempt to develop such a replacement under 

the cancelled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program. Given the 

importance of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, the committee intends to subject the program to continuing and robust oversight. 

Conditional requirement for report on amphibious assault 

vehicles for the Marine Corps (sec. 253) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

to jointly submit to the congressional defense committees a report 

by February 1, 2013, if the ongoing Marine Corps ground combat 

vehicle fleet mix study recommends the acquisition of a Marine 

Personnel Carrier (MPC). The report would include an explanation 

of the role of the MPC in fulfilling the two Marine Expeditionary 

Brigades (MEB) forcible entry requirement; the fraction of the asVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

sault echelon of the MEBs comprised of MPCs, along with an assessment of the operational risks associated with using ship-toshore connectors to ferry MPCs rather than tanks and artillery; 

and an estimate of the acquisition and life cycle costs of a split fleet 

of Amphibious Combat Vehicles and MPCs as compared to the 

costs of a pure fleet of Amphibious Combat Vehicles. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Transfer of administration of Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel from Department of the Navy to 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (sec. 

271) 

The committee recommends a provision, based upon a Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would transfer responsibility for administration of the Ocean Research Advisory Panel 

(ORAP) from the Department of the Navy to the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce. 

This change would allow the functions of the ORAP to be aligned 

more appropriately to address the full range of ocean, coastal, and 

Great Lakes policy issues. 

Budget Items 

Army 

Medium Extended Air Defense System 

The budget request included $400.9 million in PE 64869A for development of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). 

Under the tri-national (United States, Germany and Italy) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on development of MEADS, the 

Department of Defense is obligated to seek fiscal year 2013 congressional funding for the MEADS program as the final increment 

of U.S. funding. 

The committee notes that section 235 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), limited the obligation or expenditure of more than 25 percent of the 

fiscal year 2012 funds for MEADS until the Department submits 

a plan to use such funds as final obligations under the MEADS 

program for either: (1) implementing a restructured program of reduced scope; or (2) contract termination liability costs with respect 

to the contracts covering the program. In keeping with section 235 

of that Act, the committee recommends a reduction of $400.9 million in PE 64869A, the entire amount of the budget request for continued development of the MEADS program. 

On April 26, 2012, the Department of Defense submitted a report 

to the congressional defense committees with the plan required by 

section 235. The Department reported that it plans to ‘‘use the FY 

[fiscal year] 2012 funds as final obligations to implement a restructured program of reduced scope.’’ In accordance with section 235, 

Department of Defense officials proposed options to their German 

and Italian counterparts for reducing the scope of the MEADS 

Proof of Concept program, but the partner governments did not 

agree to the Department’s proposals. The report noted that ‘‘[a]ll 

three MEADS Participants must reach unanimous agreement beVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

fore the Proof of Concept can be amended or the prime contract can 

be terminated.’’ 

The Department’s report also noted that, ‘‘[i]f Congress does not 

appropriate FY 2013 funding, the U.S. DOD [Department of Defense] would take the position that the FY 2012 funds represent 

the U.S. DOD’s final financial contribution under the MOU. The 

U.S. DOD would also take the position that failure to provide FY 

2013 funding would not be a unilateral withdrawal from the MOU, 

with reference to the MOU’s provision subjecting Participants’ activities under the MOU ‘to the availability of funds appropriated 

for such purposes.’ ’’ In January 2012, Acting Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Frank Kendall, 

informed his German and Italian counterparts that, ‘‘it is very unlikely that Congress will authorize and appropriate any U.S. FY 

2013 funds for MEADS.’’ Given that the U.S. responsibility under 

the MEADS MOU is made ‘‘subject to the availability of funds appropriated for the purposes of carrying out MEADS activities,’’ and 

that the United States is not withdrawing unilaterally from the 

MOU, the committee urges the Department to continue its efforts 

to reach agreement with its German and Italian partners on a plan 

to restructure the MEADS program further to reduce its scope, 

using fiscal year 2012 funds as the final U.S. obligations for the 

program. 

Improved turbine engine program 

The budget request included $72.3 million in PE 23744A for the 

Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP). The committee notes 

that the fiscal year 2013 request assumed contract award for engineering and manufacturing development would occur in fiscal year 

2012. The program is delayed, however, and contract award is not 

anticipated until fiscal 2014. The committee recommends a decrease of $54.0 million in PE 23744A for ITEP. 

The committee also notes that the Army’s ITEP strategy includes 

dual vendor competitive development through milestone C. The 

committee supports competition in technology development and encourages the Army to take advantage of the capability and interest 

of multiple helicopter engine developers through competitive prototyping. 

Air Force 

Next generation aerial refueling aircraft 

The budget request included $1,815.6 million to continue development of the KC–46A, the next-generation aerial refueling aircraft. 

The program office received fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 

Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund (TRTF) funds in fiscal year 

2011 that provided $135.0 million more research, development, 

test, and evaluation (RDT&E) funding than the Air Force believed 

it needed during that period. The Department of the Air Force applied $47.9 million of the $135.0 million to small business innovation research activities, leaving $87.1 million of the $135.0 million 

in excess fiscal year 2011 funding available to cover fiscal year 

2012 activities. Since Congress already provided full funding of the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

fiscal year 2012 requirement, the Department could apply $87.1 

million in fiscal year 2012 funds against fiscal year 2013 funding 

requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of 

$87.1 million in the budget request for the KC–46A EMD program. 

Defense-wide 

Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict Advanced Development and Combatting Terrorism Technology Support 

The budget request includes $77.1 million in PE 603122D8Z for 

Combatting Terrorism Technology Support (CTTS) and $26.3 million in PE 603121 for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict 

(SO/LIC) Advanced Development. The budget lines fund a broad 

spectrum of technology development ranging from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear countermeasures; to explosives detection and improvised explosive device (IED) defeat; to special reconnaissance capabilities; to decision, planning, and analytical tools; to 

irregular warfare support—all for various interagency customers. 

The committee is concerned that a significant portion of these activities appear to overlap or exist in a non-coordinated fashion with 

activities under the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), U.S. 

Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), the military departments, and other Department of Defense (DOD) agencies. Furthermore, it is not clear what transition mechanisms are in place to ensure technologies developed under these activities have an enduring impact on the capabilities of the special operations or general 

purpose forces. 

The committee also notes that the new defense strategic guidance highlights Counter Terrorism and Irregular Warfare (CT & 

IW) as the first of 10 mission areas for the Joint Force. The committee feels that of all the activities in these two budget lines, the 

CT & IW area does not have significant funding in other DOD organizations and hence is most appropriate for funding in the CTTS 

and SO/LIC budget lines. 

The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, in coordination with 

the Commander of USSOCOM and the Director of JIEDDO, to submit to the congressional defense committees not later than 90 days 

after enactment of this Act, a report that: (1) describes and assesses the effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms in place to 

avoid duplication of efforts funded by these two budget lines and 

other relevant defense entities, including JIEDDO and USSOCOM; 

(2) outlines the differences between technologies funded by the 

CTTS and SO/LIC budget lines and other relevant defense entities, 

including JIEDDO and SOCOM; (3) provides a listing of which 

technologies have successfully transitioned to the services and 

USSOCOM; and (4) describes how the CT & IW programs funded 

by SO/LIC fit within the Department’s broader CT & IW strategy. 

Furthermore the committee recommends a decrease of $11.3 million from PE 603122D8Z for activities relating to counter-IED activities, given that they appear to be duplicative of activities conducted by JIEDDO. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

Industrial base innovation fund 

The budget request included $22.0 million in PE 603680D8Z for 

defense-wide manufacturing science and technology. The committee, along with other congressional defense committees, has 

been a strong supporter of programs that sustain and advance targeted sectors and capabilities of the defense industrial base. A February 2006 report by the Defense Science Board regarding the Department of Defense’s Manufacturing Technology Program points 

out that manufacturing technology plays a critical role in addressing development, acquisition, and sustainment problems associated 

with advanced weapons programs and recommended increased 

funding in this area. 

Furthermore, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review explicitly 

stressed the importance of the defense industrial base and the Department of Defense’s new strategic guidance released in January 

2012, stated that the Department ‘‘will make every effort to maintain an adequate industrial base and our investment in science and 

technology.’’ In addition, the administration recently announced the 

formation of a national network of institutes for manufacturing innovation, which in part, are planned to address Department of Defense mission requirements. The committee recommends an additional $30.0 million to continue the Industrial Base Innovation Fund (IBIF) program in the 

above program element line. The committee directs the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base 

Policy to continue to make competitive, merit-based investments in 

manufacturing research and development that address defense industrial base shortfalls, especially those related to more urgent production requirements and diminishing defense manufacturing 

sources and material shortages, and a sustainable defense design 

team base. Other areas of emphasis encouraged are those related 

to the emerging fields of model-based engineering and integrated 

computational materials engineering, as highlighted in a recent 

National Research Council report, and new innovative technologies 

being developed through public-private partnerships such as the 

National Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, Connecting American Manufacturing, and the National Digital Engineering and 

Manufacturing Consortium. 

Furthermore, if the Department of Defense believes that the 

IBIF is important to the sustainment of the industrial base, then 

the Department should institutionalize this program with adequate 

resources in future years and consider it as an important component of its wider manufacturing and industrial base strategy, in 

part, informed by its on-going ‘‘Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier’’ analyses. 

Defense microelectronics strategy and Next Generation 

Foundry 

The Senate report accompanying S. 1235 (S. Rept. 112–26) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 directed 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to 

brief the congressional defense committees by September 30, 2011, 

on a microelectronics strategy that would address components including resilient advanced microprocessors, application specific inVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

tegrated circuits, field programmable gate arrays, printed circuit 

boards, photonics devices, and other related electronics components 

for the next-generation of military and intelligence systems. The 

committee notes that the promising field of photonics includes research on devices, for example, lasers that are fully monolithically 

integrated as interconnects on integrated circuits. If successful, 

such devices could significantly reduce the power consumption, 

weight, and cooling requirements of networks for both terrestrial 

applications, as well as for weapon systems. In addition, the committee understood this strategy would also address the full spectrum of the supply chain including design, mask development and 

inspection, fabrication, packaging and assembly, and testing. However, the committee has not received this strategy yet and is concerned that the Department of Defense (DOD) is requesting $10.0 

million in fiscal year 2013 for the development of a 90 nanometer 

(nm) Next Generation Foundry for the Defense Microelectronics Activity without the context of this broader strategy. 

The committee fully appreciates the DOD’s need to upgrade its 

fabrication capabilities for microelectronics devices that are obsolete and no longer produced by the commercial sector, but are still 

required by its weapon systems. In addition, the committee understands that developing this capability is at least a 5 year endeavor 

and that if the Department delays, there may be detrimental consequences in the out-years to the warfighting readiness and capabilities of weapon systems that rely upon outdated microelectronics 

devices. 

However, the committee is not satisfied that a complete life cycle 

cost estimate has been conducted that accounts for the full costs of 

this upgrade, including whether workforce training and/or expansion is required. The committee believes that this comprehensive 

planning must be completed before spending the full $10.0 million 

the initial year. Hence, the committee recommends a decrease of 

$3.0 million to PE 603720S for the 90 nm Next Generation Foundry budget request. In addition, the committee recommends a fence 

on this funding that is described elsewhere in this report. 

Lastly, due to its ongoing oversight and concerns regarding the 

security of the electronics supply chain, the committee expects the 

defense microelectronics strategy to address linkages to the broader 

policy guidance and regulations that DOD is developing for two 

areas. One is related to ‘‘Trusted Systems and Networks’’ that addresses both the needs for procuring DOD-unique components for 

well-defined mission critical systems from suppliers that are certified under Defense Microelectronics Activity’s Trusted Integrated 

Circuit Suppliers program and the management of risk in the supply chain for other integrated circuit-related products. The other is 

related to combating counterfeit components and the need for 

‘‘Trustworthy Suppliers’’ that adhere to DOD requirements and established industry standards. The committee is expecting that 

these new policies and regulations, under the umbrella of the 

DOD’s Program Protection process, will identify the steps that the 

DOD will take to ensure that it will procure microelectronic systems through trusted contractors and subcontractors and that potential vulnerabilities due to non-domestic foundries will be addressed. The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to brief the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 

the status of these policies no later than December 31, 2012. 

Advanced sensor applications program 

The budget request included $16.9 million for the Advanced Sensor Applications Program (ASAP). This represents a reduction from 

a level of $18.4 million in fiscal year 2012 and reflects a general 

reduction applied to a number of budget line items in an acrossthe-board manner. The committee believes that this reduction, 

while modest by other program standards, will cause the program 

to postpone important testing and experiments. The committee believes that these efforts are too important to postpone or cancel, 

and therefore, recommends an additional $2.0 million for ASAP. 

U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs 

The budget request included $99.8 million in PE 63913C for the 

Missile Defense Agency for United States-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs, including: $10.7 million to improve the existing Arrow Weapon System; $50.9 million for continued development of the Arrow–3 upper-tier interceptor missile, and $38.3 million for co-development of a short-range missile defense system 

called ‘‘David’s Sling.’’ These systems are part of Israel’s layered 

defenses against missiles and rockets of different ranges, from 

longer-range missiles from Iran or Syria, to short-range missiles 

and large caliber rockets fired from Lebanese territory in the summer of 2006, to the very short-range rockets fired recently from 

Gaza. The United States is co-managing and jointly developing 

these systems to ensure that they are compatible and interoperable 

with U.S. missile defense systems. 

The committee recognizes that the missile threat to Israel from 

ballistic missiles and rockets of varying ranges is extremely serious 

and increasing, and that effective missile defenses are an essential 

component of Israel’s security and regional stability. The committee 

supports efforts to enhance and accelerate these systems, including 

technical and schedule risk reduction, in a manner that is consistent with the terms and conditions of the joint Project Agreements governing the management and execution of these cooperative projects. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in PE 63193C for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs, including: $20.0 million to improve the Arrow Weapon System, $20.0 million for the Arrow–3 upper-tier interceptor program, 

and $60.0 million for the David’s Sling weapon system. The committee expects that the Department of Defense will continue its efforts to enhance the joint management of these programs, including 

efforts to avoid excessive concurrency. 

The budget request included no funds for the Israeli Iron Dome 

short-range rocket defense system. However, after the budget submission the Department of Defense stated it would seek additional 

funds from Congress for the United States to provide to Israel to 

acquire additional Iron Dome short-range rocket defense systems. 

The committee understands that the fiscal year 2013 funding request will be for $210.0 million, and recommends an additional inVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

crease of $210.0 million in PE 63913C for the Israeli Iron Dome 

system. A legislative provision that would authorize this funding is 

described elsewhere in this report. The committee is aware of reports that the additional request for Iron Dome funding could be 

for as much as $680.0 million over multiple fiscal years, and looks 

forward to receiving the Department’s request, and to continuing 

its support for Israeli missile defense programs. 

Department of Defense Corrosion Program shortfall 

The budget request included $10.1 million for the Department of 

Defense (DOD) Corrosion Program divided between Operation and 

Maintenance and Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 

(RDT&E). The DOD has consistently underfunded the DOD Corrosion Program in fiscal years 2011, 2012, and now 2013. The DOD 

Corrosion Program has identified to Congress a $41.5 million requirements shortfall in RDT&E funding. 

The committee remains concerned that corrosion is costly and 

can have negative effects on military equipment in terms of cost, 

readiness, operator and maintenance burdens, and safety. The 

DOD estimates that the negative effects of corrosion cost approximately $23.0 billion in annual maintenance expenditures for weapon systems and infrastructure. 

The committee has recommended a provision that would amend 

the DOD reporting requirements to Congress by requiring additional information on corrosion projects, including validated returns 

on investment for completed corrosion projects, activities, and information on how corrosion funding is used for military projects, the 

Technical Corrosion Collaboration pilot program, and other corrosion-related activities. Additionally, the Government Accountability 

Office has stated that the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office 

within the DOD Corrosion Program delivers at least a 14 to 1 ratio 

return on investment to the taxpayer through corrosion project opportunities and activity requirements. Ensuring proper corrosion 

prevention and control plays a major role in the sustainment costs 

and life cycle range of many current and future weapon systems including the F–22, F–35, and various ground vehicles, ships, and 

aircraft. 

The committee continues to urge the Secretary of Defense to fully 

fund the corrosion control requirements in the fiscal year 2014 base 

budget request. 

In light of the committee requesting additional information from 

the DOD Corrosion Program, the committee recommends an increase of $20.8 million in RDT&E, line 099, Program Element 

64016D8Z for the DOD Corrosion Program to address the identified 

shortfall. 

Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program science and technology thrust areas 

The Defense Research and Development Rapid Innovation Program (RIP) is a competitive, merit-based program established by 

section 1073 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) that is designed to fund 

innovative technologies, reduce acquisition or life cycle costs, address technical risks, improve the timeliness of test and evaluation 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

outcomes, and rapidly insert technologies needed to meet critical 

national security needs. The committee notes that $200.0 million 

was appropriated for the RIP in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112–74); however, no funds were 

requested in fiscal year 2013. While the RIP is still new and the 

committee has yet to see the results of the first round of projects 

funded by fiscal year 2011 funds, there is clearly strong service 

support because of the overwhelming response from industry—especially small businesses—providing new innovative technologies 

and opening up more collaborative opportunities with a broader 

base of small businesses and non-traditional suppliers to the DOD. 

The committee understands that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering will soon be conducting a review of the fiscal year 2011 projects to assess the value of continuing the RIP. If the review validates the program, then the Department should integrate it into its future annual budget requests. The committee recommends an increase of $200.0 million in 

funding for the RIP to PE 604775D8Z, and suggests an emphasis 

on the following areas: 

1. Enhancing energy security and independence. For increased investment in technologies that will improve energy efficiency, enhance energy security, and reduce the Department’s 

dependence on fossil fuels through advances in traditional and 

alternative energy storage, power systems, renewable energy 

production and more energy efficient ground, air, and naval 

systems. The committee notes that the Department of Defense 

remains critically dependent upon energy for both its far-flung 

infrastructure, and for its global military operations. The Department currently consumes as much energy as two-thirds of 

all the world’s nations. Improved energy efficiency in remote 

areas such as Afghanistan can reduce the dependence of our 

armed forces on fragile fuel supply lines that are vulnerable to 

enemy attack, and thus can help save lives; 

2. Developing, utilizing, and maintaining advanced materials. For increased investment in a broad range of materials 

technologies that can provide: enhanced performance in extreme environments; improved strength and reduced weight for 

the spectrum of applications ranging from aerospace to lighter 

soldier loads; greater survivability of ground, air, and naval 

systems; and reduced life cycle costs through better maintainability for a wide variety of the challenging environments and 

unique properties demanded of military systems. Such materials could include advanced composites and metals, nanomaterials, and rare-earth alternatives. Whether increasing survivability, improving fuel efficiency for greater performance, or decreasing maintenance costs, advanced materials are a 

foundational enabling component of military systems across all 

services and all warfighting domains; 

3. Improving manufacturing technologies and capabilities. 

For increased investment in advanced and innovative manufacturing technologies across the spectrum of applications to significantly compress design to production time cycles, reduce 

cost, minimize waste and energy consumption, and improve 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

product quality and reliability. Historically, the Department 

has heavily invested in the technologies to improve the performance of military systems, but not in the processes to reduce the costs of the production of those military systems. Numerous high-level studies have stressed the benefits of advancing the state of manufacturing technologies—whether for a 

ship hull or a radiation-hardened chip—for long-term savings 

and the need to capitalize on the latest innovations in manufacturing processes for defense systems. Projects in this area 

should be coordinated with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy to ensure that investments are guided, in part, by shortfalls identified in industrial base analyses such as the ongoing ‘‘Sector by 

Sector, Tier by Tier’’ study effort; 

4. Advancing microelectronics. For increased investment in 

the development of resilient advanced microprocessors, application-specific integrated circuits, field programmable gate arrays, printed circuit boards, photonics devices, and other related electronics components for the next-generation of military 

and intelligence systems. Similar to advanced materials, advanced microelectronics are a cross-cutting enabler across all 

military systems. Given that the majority of costs of most advanced weapons platforms are in electronics and supporting 

software, investments in this area to improve processing capacity, decrease weight and power requirements, and increase resiliency should have high payoff; and 

5. Developing cybersecurity tools. For increased investment 

in areas such as internet and network mapping capabilities, 

software reverse engineering and vulnerability analysis, network data collection and analysis, new innovative defensive 

techniques against cyber attacks—especially in virtual environments, and integrated cloud security capabilities. The security 

of DOD’s war fighting and business networks, as well as the 

networks of the defense industrial base is a serious concern. 

DOD needs access to the latest innovative technologies in this 

field in order to stay ahead of rapidly growing and evolving 

threats in cyberspace. 

Funding authorized for the RIP may be used to augment existing 

research and development efforts or initiate new projects. As provided in section 1073, the Secretary of Defense may transfer funds 

available for the RIP to the research, development, test, and evaluation accounts of a military department, defense agency, or the 

unified combatant command for special operations forces pursuant 

to a proposal, or any part of a proposal, that the Secretary determines would directly support the purposes of the program. All such 

funding is required by law to be allocated on the basis of a meritbased selection, pursuant to a broad agency announcement or similar competitive process. 

General fund enterprise business systems realignment 

The budget request included $9.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), for General Fund Enterprise 

Business System (GFEBS). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

The committee has received a request from the Army to realign $17.2 million into GFEBS to support the engineering development 

effort necessary to process classified and sensitive transactions and 

to mitigate the risk of exposing classified information. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $17.2 million in RDT&E for GFEBS realignment. 

Developmental test and evaluation 

The budget request included $15.1 million in PE 605804D8Z for 

developmental test and evaluation, which was a decrease of about 

$0.7 million from the fiscal year 2012 budget request, and about 

$4.2 million below the fiscal year 2012 appropriation of $19.3 million. 

The committee notes the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform 

Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–23) required the Department of Defense to rebuild its systems engineering and developmental testing 

organizations to ensure that design problems are understood and 

addressed early in the acquisition process. 

While the Department has taken great strides in improving its 

acquisition process, the committee notes that the Fiscal Year 2011 

Annual Report by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation—dated December 2011—provided a list of 17 major defense acquisition programs that had discoveries of significant problems during operational test and evaluation that should have been detected 

and corrected during developmental test and evaluation. 

Furthermore, the committee notes that the Department’s defense-wide systems engineering budget request is almost three 

times greater than the developmental test and evaluation budget 

request. In fiscal year 2012, the committee recommended an increase of $5.0 million to developmental test and evaluation. The 

committee believes the Department is continuing to underfund its 

developmental test and evaluation activities, as evidenced by the 

unacceptable number of problems being discovered in operational 

test and evaluation. Hence, the committee recommends an increase 

of $5.0 million in the above program element line. 

Shallow Water Combat Submersible Program 

The budget request includes $8.9 million in PE 1160483BB for 

the continued development of the Shallow Water Combat Submersible. The committee understands that the contractor’s failure to 

meet systems engineering requirements will result in an overall 

program delay of several months and require at least an additional 

$8.0 million to complete research and development activities. According to U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), ‘‘extreme schedule variations from the baseline resulted in the inability to accurately track progress and cost.’’ At the request of 

USSOCOM, the committee recommends a transfer of $8.0 million 

from Procurement, Defense-wide, to Research, Development, Test, 

and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for cost growth in the engineering 

and manufacturing development phase of the program. 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs 

The budget request included $2.8 billion for the research and 

management activities of the Defense Advanced Research Projects 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

Agency (DARPA). While DARPA’s fiscal performance has notably 

improved, the committee is still concerned about the timeliness of 

sustained funding execution. The committee recommends a reduction of $100.0 million from DARPA’s overall budget to reflect continuing concerns about timely and effective execution of funds by 

the agency, as well as concerns about specific programs. 

DARPA is pursuing a broad range of manufacturing-related programs with over $500.0 million planned over the future-years defense program. The committee continues to support DARPA’s efforts to revolutionize manufacturing technologies and methods. 

However, DARPA’s transition plans for these programs are not 

clear. One of the metrics of success to DARPA’s efforts in this area 

will be when the defense industrial base (as well as the broader national industrial base) incorporates new innovative manufacturing 

technologies and methods that will focus on increasing affordability 

and decreasing timelines. In order to accomplish this goal, DARPA 

needs to work more closely with the Services’ Manufacturing Technology programs and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy and its research and development activities tied to new national manufacturing initiatives 

such as the Advanced Manufacturing Program. In addition, 

DARPA needs to work with the appropriate entities within the Department in considering the legal and policy implications to opensource manufacturing such as trusted supply chains, export controls and intellectual property issues. 

The Fast, Adaptable, Next-Generation Ground Combat Vehicle is 

a program where model-based design tools and highly adaptable 

foundry-style manufacturing techniques are being explored with respect to combat vehicle design and production. The committee continues to be concerned that force protection and related armor technologies, which are an integral component of any ground combat 

vehicle, are not adequately being addressed in conjunction with the 

Army. 

Hence, the committee directs DARPA to commission a review of 

its Adaptive Vehicle Make (AVM) umbrella program by an external 

review panel and submit the results of this review to the congressional defense committees 90 days after the enactment of this Act. 

The review should assess DARPA’s transition plans for the AVM 

program and how well potential policy and legal issues are being 

addressed. 

The committee is strongly disappointed in DARPA’s report to the 

congressional defense committees requested in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 

111–383) on the transition plan for the National Cyber Range 

(NCR) that identified U.S. Cyber Command as the transition partner. Given that U.S. Cyber Command has not agreed to be the 

transition partner, and given that this facility and technology represents at least a $116.0 million investment through fiscal year 

2011, the committee recommends increasing PE 605118OTE by 

$4.0 million and directs the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to continue testing the NCR with the broad cyber community in fiscal year 2013 until a final plan is developed for the NCR 

by the Department of Defense. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

Items of Special Interest 

Adaptive engine technology development program 

The committee notes the Air Force budget request for fiscal year 2013 includes $214.0 million for the Adaptive Engine Technology 

Development (AETD) program. The Air Force has explained that 

this engine technology program has the potential to achieve a 25 

percent reduction in cruise specific fuel consumption compared to 

existing state-of-the art engines such as the F135 engine. This fuel 

efficiency goal was set by the National Aeronautics Research and 

Development Plan of 2010 that provides overarching research goals 

and objectives to the interagency aeronautics research and development community, of which the Department of Defense is a key 

member. Such aggressive fuel consumption reduction goals are 

driven by the need to reduce overall fuel costs in military operations, as well as to make significant improvements to unrefueled 

aircraft range and time-on-station. 

The committee supports the Air Force Research Lab’s (AFRL) efforts to pursue increased fuel efficiency and support the military 

aircraft engine industrial base through science and technology 

(S&T) programs including AETD. The committee’s support for 

AETD is based on two understandings. First, the committee understands that AFRL will award up to two contracts for the AETD 

program through a fully open and competitive process that will not 

unduly advantage competitors who performed for the predecessor 

Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology program, nor disadvantage 

competitors performing for other military aircraft engine research 

or production programs. 

Second, the committee has received assurances in testimony from 

the Air Force that AETD is purely a technology maturation program and is not a new ‘‘alternate engine’’ program for the F–35 

Joint Strike Fighter. The committee notes that further development of the alternate engine for the F–35 is prohibited under current law, and expects the Air Force to abide by the letter and the 

spirit of this law. 

The committee notes that it will review annually the progress of 

the AETD program during the course of its annual reviews of the 

Air Force’s S&T programs. 

Air Force cyber and information technology research 

The fiscal year 2013 Air Force budget request included $136.0 

million for research and development in PE 602788F (Dominant Information Technology) and PE 603788F (Global Information Dev/ 

Demo) for a broad spectrum of activities in cyber science and technology (S&T); autonomy, command and control, and decision support; connectivity and dissemination; and processing and exploitation technologies. The committee notes that these investment 

areas are consistent with the Air Force’s Technology Horizons S&T 

plans, as well as with elements of the Department of Defense’s 

overarching S&T priority areas. However, the committee notes that 

this investment level is a reduction of almost 20 percent compared 

to the fiscal year 2012 funding levels, and that funding is projected 

to increase again in the fiscal year 2014–2017 time frame. The 

committee understands that the fiscal year 2013 decrease in fundVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

ing in these areas is due to a ‘‘strategic pause’’ that the Air Force 

is taking to develop an investment plan for its activities. However, 

given the strategic importance of these technology areas—as identified in the new defense strategic guidance issued in January 2012, 

the committee is concerned about this significant drop in funding 

that would impact cyber-related research and development (R&D). 

Hence, the committee directs the Air Force to provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees detailing its investment 

strategy for these technology areas outlined above within 180 days 

after the enactment of this Act. The report should, at a minimum: 

1) identify the Air Force’s near-, mid-, and far-term S&T priorities 

for cyber and information-related technologies and the resources— 

both in funding and personnel—projected to address these priorities; 2) lay out a transition strategy for the results of these S&T 

efforts into weapon systems, including cyber tools; 3) address how 

the Air Force will recruit, train, and retain a highly skilled workforce in these areas; and 4) address laboratory infrastructure and 

research facilities necessary for the accomplishment of this R&D. 

Air Force space developmental test and evaluation 

In the Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems Engineering FY 2011 Annual Report to Congress, the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E) stated that the Air Force Space Community should 

‘‘grow their Developmental Test and Evaluation workforce and 

training in order for it to provide a robust government DT&E capability.’’ 

The committee notes that while the Air Force has an operational 

test and evaluation organization, it does not have a developmental 

test and evaluation organization for space systems similar to what 

it has for its aeronautical systems. 

Hence the committee directs the Air Force to provide a report to 

the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2012, on 

how it currently accomplishes its developmental test and evaluation activities for its space systems, the effectiveness of the current 

construct, and a plan for how they are responding to the above observation made by the DASD for DT&E. 

Applied mathematics and computational science 

The committee recognizes the important role that applied mathematics and computational science play in support of current Department of Defense (DOD) activities, including modeling and simulation, high performance computing, and large-scale data analysis. 

In addition, the committee acknowledges the foundational impact 

of applied mathematics and computational science on some of the 

DOD’s science and technology (S&T) emphasis areas, such as autonomy, cyber sciences, and data-to-decisions. 

However, the committee is aware of some concerns about the 

lack of a robust interaction between DOD laboratories and weapons 

centers and the academic research community in the fields of applied mathematics and computational science. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASDR&E) held a 

workshop on mathematics in January 2012, and a workshop on 

computer science in May 2011, that addressed leading areas of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

mathematics and computer science research from a disciplinary 

perspective. However, what is needed is a better understanding on 

how advances in the applied mathematics and computational 

sciences communities can assist in addressing the fundamental 

mathematical challenges underpinning some of the DOD S&T emphasis areas referenced above. For instance, DOD needs to ensure 

that advances and challenges identified in these workshops in 

areas of information science, mathematical modeling, human-machine interactions, and robotics will enable advances in the DOD’s 

S&T emphasis area of autonomy. 

Hence, the committee urges the ASDR&E and the service S&T 

executives to ensure that the DOD robustly engages with the academic mathematics and computational science communities to leverage their expertise. The committee believes that more active engagement will enable the contributions of these communities to assist progress in the DOD’s S&T emphasis areas that will ultimately 

lead to the next-generation of warfighting capabilities and technologies. 

Army manned airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms 

The budget request included $47.4 million in PE 65626A to complete four Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) 

phase Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance 

System (EMARSS) aircraft. The committee understands that the 

Army plans to take delivery of these EMD phase EMARSS aircraft, 

conduct a utility assessment of them and then field them into the 

U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) Aerial 

Exploitation Battalions (AEB). Once these EMARSS aircraft reach 

the INSCOM AEBs, they will join a vastly heterogeneous fleet of 

aging programs of records—such as the Guardrail and Airborne Reconnaissance Low aircraft—and various quick-reaction capability 

(QRC) platforms. 

The Army requested the funding for these aircraft despite the 

fact that there is no procurement funding in the future-years defense program to purchase any more EMARSS aircraft. Moreover, 

the Army asked to complete and retain these aircraft despite the 

fact that this committee signaled its clear intent—both through 

cuts to the EMARSS program and through report language on the 

MC–12W Project Liberty program in the Senate report accompanying S. 1235 (S. Rept. 112–26), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012—that the committee would not support procuring a second, separate fleet of C–12-based manned airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms. 

The committee does not recommend denying the requested funds, 

in part because the Air Force was allowed to send the Liberty fleet 

to Air National Guard units and to man those units to support the 

deployment of enough aircraft to sustain only two combat air patrols, which are expected to be allocated to Special Operations 

Command support. The committee also believes that the new Army 

G–2 needs time to assess all of the airborne ISR programs and assets that the Army has accumulated and to chart a course looking 

ahead to the drawdown in Afghanistan. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

At the same time, the committee emphasizes its growing concerns about the state of the Army’s manned airborne ISR portfolio. 

The wide mixture of manned airborne ISR platforms and sensors 

described above reflects the adaptation of Army Military Intelligence to the dynamic demands of the battlefield after 11 years of 

war. With soldiers gradually returning from the battlefield and 

with mounting pressure to decrease defense spending, now is the 

time for the Army to rationalize this fleet rather than to keep adding to it with low numbers of diverse aircraft. 

The committee directs the Army G–2, the Army G–8, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to develop a plan for Army manned airborne ISR platforms. 

This plan should address the following questions: • What requirements for manned airborne ISR support to 

Army general purpose forces can be met with shared assets 

from other services; • What requirements for manned airborne ISR support to 

Army general purpose forces need to be met organically; • Given the set of requirements that need to be met organically, what existing QRC systems need to become programs of 

record; • Which current programs of record need to be modernized 

or eliminated; and • How will the Army resource these platform choices? 

The committee directs the Army to provide this plan to the congressional defense and intelligence committees in conjunction with 

the submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2014. The committee expects the Army to consult with the committee as this plan 

is crafted. If requirements change or if assumptions about the level 

of support available from other services change, the committee 

would like to be kept apprised. 

Army robotics 

The committee notes that ground robotic vehicles have saved 

many lives in the fight against improvised explosive devices (IED) 

and other efforts are underway to use ground robotics to accomplish ‘‘dirty, dull, and dangerous’’ tasks, including the transport of 

equipment and supplies, that will make our troops more safe and 

effective. Leading the research effort in ground robotics and autonomous control systems is the Army’s Tank and Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center working collaboratively with industry and academia, as well as the Army Research 

Laboratory with the Robotics Collaborative Technology Alliance. 

The Army also works closely with the Robotic Systems Joint 

Project Office that is dedicated to continuous improvement of unmanned system capabilities to meet current and future joint military requirements. 

The committee believes that Army investments in the development of new ground robotics technologies to date are inadequate 

and lack focus. The Senate report accompanying S. 1235 (S. Rept. 

112–26) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 highlighted the importance of robotic ground vehicle technologies and acknowledged that the Army leadership was in the 

process of determining operational and technical requirements for 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

ground robotics vehicles that will guide the development of a longterm research, development, and acquisition strategy. The committee understood that this strategy would be developed by the end 

of 2011 and used to guide Army research and development investments in robotic ground vehicles in fiscal year 2013 and beyond. 

However, the Army has not yet produced this strategy. 

The committee understands that recent Army strategic planning 

efforts on ground robotic vehicles have resulted in the development 

of an Unmanned Systems (Air, Ground, Maritime) Initial Capabilities Document that is approved by both the Army and Marine 

Corps, and is awaiting approval by the Joint Staff. Furthermore, 

the committee understands that the multi-service Joint Ground Robotics Integration Team, established by the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence, is developing an Unmanned Ground Systems 

(UGS) Campaign Plan for the Army. It is expected that this campaign plan will provide the Army with the unity of effort across the 

unmanned enterprise including science and technology; experimentation, test and evaluation, and safety; development and fielding; 

training and sustainment; and deployment and employment. The 

committee believes this integrated effort is crucial to address not 

only technical challenges, but the more important policy and operational concepts issues that will ultimately inform the Army’s investment plans in this area. Ultimately, the goal of this UGS Campaign Plan should be an affordably modernized force that fully integrates manned and unmanned teaming capabilities with improved persistence, protection, endurance, and autonomy. 

The committee expects the Army to complete and approve this 

UGS Campaign Plan in 2012, and to be briefed no later than December 31, 2012. 

Ballistic missile defense overview 

The budget request included $9.7 billion for missile defense, in- cluding $7.8 billion for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and $1.9 

billion for Army and related missile defense programs. 

In the area of homeland defense, 30 Ground-Based Interceptors 

(GBI) have been deployed in Alaska and California as part of the 

Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, and are providing 

protection of the United States from the possible future threat of 

limited ballistic missile attack from nations such as North Korea 

and Iran. As outlined in the February 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, the Department of Defense has a program to improve 

the reliability and performance of the GMD system. The GBI reliability program is intended to double the number of threat intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) that the current GMD system 

could defeat, without adding any GBIs—thus effectively doubling 

the capability of the existing GMD system. 

In December 2011, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) awarded 

the GMD development and sustainment contract. Its cost was 

roughly $1.0 billion below the government cost estimate. This cost 

reduction resulted from competition, and permitted a reduction in 

the negotiated price of GBIs from about $75.0 million to about 

$53.0 million each. One benefit of the new GMD contract is the inclusion of a defects clause that holds the contractor accountable for 

quality failures, and would require the contractor—not the taxVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

payer—to pay the costs of defective work. The committee commends MDA for achieving such substantial cost reduction and contractor accountability, and encourages MDA to pursue similar benefits in future contracts through competition. 

In the budget request, the Missile Defense Agency is requesting 

an additional five GBIs as test and spare missiles. These additional 

interceptors would provide several benefits that would: 1) allow a 

more robust test and evaluation program; 2) allow the operational 

deployment of eight additional GBIs in spare silos at Missile Field– 

2 at Fort Greely, Alaska, if needed to meet a potential expansion 

of future threats from North Korea or Iran; and 3) keep the GBI 

production line warm into fiscal year 2018, thus permitting future 

procurement of additional GBIs, if needed. 

As a result of a GMD flight test failure in December 2010, MDA’s 

highest priority is to correct the problem that caused the failure 

and to demonstrate the correction in two flight tests prior to resuming production or refurbishment of the newest model of exo-atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) that failed—the Capability Enhancement-II model. This plan is consistent with the committee’s position, and the committee commends MDA for its rigorous and disciplined approach to demonstrating that the new kill vehicle will 

work as intended before resuming production. As part of this approach, MDA is requiring the EKV contractors to meet more rigorous manufacturing and production quality standards, which has 

delayed the two planned flight tests several months. The committee 

believes it is important to take such prudent steps to improve quality and increase confidence in the system. 

The committee notes that the Integrated Master Test Plan for 

missile defense includes a series of planned GMD tests through 

2022, including salvo testing, multiple simultaneous engagement 

testing, and operational testing. These tests are planned at a rate 

of roughly one test per year, which the Director of Operational Test 

and Evaluation testified is the best rate that has been achievable 

over the last decade. The Director of MDA testified that ‘‘conducting flight tests at a pace greater than once a year prohibits 

thorough analysis of pre-mission and post-mission flight test data 

and causes greater risk of further failure and setbacks to developing our homeland defense capability as rapidly as possible.’’ 

In addition to its plans and programs to improve the reliability 

and performance of the GMD system, the Department is also pursuing a strategy to hedge against the possibility that the future 

ICBM threat from North Korea or Iran could emerge faster or in 

greater numbers than anticipated. Under this homeland defense 

hedging strategy, the Department has already made or implemented a number of decisions to improve the missile defense posture of the United States. For example, the Department has completed the construction of eight extra GBI silos at Missile Field 2 

at Fort Greely, Alaska, which would permit the deployment of eight 

additional GBIs if needed to cope with a future emerging threat. 

The Department is evaluating the evolving threat and considering 

other potential hedging options, such as the advisability, feasibility, 

and affordability of deploying additional GBIs in the future, either 

in Alaska or possibly on the East Coast. The committee recommends a provision that would require the Department to report 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

on these homeland defense activities, as described elsewhere in this 

report. The committee notes that section 233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) 

required a report on the homeland defense hedging policy and 

strategy that was due in March, but which the Department has not 

yet submitted. The committee understands that the review process 

has taken much longer than originally planned, and is still continuing. However, the committee still expects the Department to 

provide the report as soon as it is finished, and to provide an interim report in case of any significant anticipated delay. 

The committee notes that the threat of regional missiles, particularly short- and medium-range missiles from Iran and North 

Korea, is serious and growing. These missiles pose a significant 

risk to forward-deployed U.S. forces, allies, and partners in Europe, 

the Middle East, and Asia. The Department has an obligation to 

provide force protection to U.S. forces against ballistic missiles deployed in these regions, as well as to meet our security commitments to our allies. To meet these needs, the Department is pursuing a Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) to regional missile defense, tailored to each region. 

In 2011, the Department completed the deployment of Phase 1 

of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to missile defense, which is intended to defend our deployed forces and allies 

against Iranian missiles. This included: the deployment of an Aegis 

Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) ship in the eastern Mediterranean 

Sea, equipped with Standard Missile–3 (SM–3) Block IA interceptors; the deployment of an AN/TPY–2 X-band missile defense radar 

in Turkey; and establishment of a command and control facility in 

Germany. 

During 2011, the administration also completed negotiations on 

all the bilateral agreements required to implement all four phases 

of the EPAA, including: agreements with Romania and Poland for 

the deployment of Aegis Ashore systems on their territory; an 

agreement with Turkey to deploy the AN/TPY–2 radar on its territory; and an agreement with Spain to permit the forward stationing of four Aegis BMD ships at Rota. 

The core capability of the EPAA will be the Aegis BMD system, 

both at sea and on land, with four increasingly capable variants of 

the SM–3 interceptor missile, the SM–3 Blocks IA, IB, IIA and IIB. 

As indicated previously, the committee strongly supports the development, testing, production, and deployment of operationally effective Aegis BMD and SM–3 capabilities in sufficient numbers to 

support the needs of the regional combatant commanders to implement the PAA in Europe and other regions, and to help protect the 

Homeland. 

In April 2011, an Aegis BMD ship with an SM–3 IA interceptor, 

using sensor information from a forward-deployed AN/TPY–2 radar 

like the one now deployed in Turkey, successfully intercepted an 

intermediate-range ballistic missile target during a flight test. This 

was a demonstration of the EPAA Phase 1 capability. 

In September 2011, the first flight test of the SM–3 Block IB interceptor failed to intercept the target. The MDA has analyzed the 

problem, and conducted a repeat test on May 10, 2012, which successfully intercepted the target, to demonstrate the problem has 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

been resolved. The September flight test failure caused a delay in 

the planned initial procurement of SM–3 IB missiles, and MDA 

plans to procure additional SM–3 IA missiles to meet the needs of 

combatant commanders for additional interceptor inventory. Prior 

to a full production decision for SM–3 IB, MDA would need to demonstrate success in five planned flight tests, three in 2012 and two 

more in 2013. The SM–3 IB is intended for deployment in Phase 

2 of the EPAA in the 2015 timeframe, both at sea and at an Aegis 

Ashore site in Romania. 

Phase 3 of the EPAA is planned for deployment in the 2018 timeframe, and will include the SM–3 IIA interceptor at sea and at 

Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania. The SM–3 IIA is being 

co-developed with Japan, which will also deploy the missile on its 

Kongo-class Aegis BMD ships. During 2011, MDA completed the 

preliminary design review and extended the development phase of 

the SM–3 IIA with Japan to reduce technical and schedule risk. 

The first flight test (non-intercept) of the SM–3 IIA is planned for 

fiscal year 2014, and nine more tests are planned before the Phase 

3 deployment. Phase 3 is designed to provide a robust defense 

against Iranian intermediate-range missiles. 

The last planned variant of the SM–3 missile is the Block IIB, 

which is intended for deployment in Phase 4 of the EPAA in the 

2021 timeframe. The SM–3 IIB is intended to defend against possible future long-range Iranian missiles that could reach the 

United States. This system would augment the GMD system for 

homeland defense and would provide an early intercept capability 

that could permit a ‘‘shoot-look-shoot’’ option to permit GBIs being 

held in reserve. The committee believes it is important to develop 

a second type of interceptor system to defend the Homeland, in addition to the GBI system. By pursuing a competitive approach to 

the concept development phase, MDA has engaged the significant 

engineering and design talent of the industrial base. The committee believes it is important to maintain this competitive approach, particularly since it could produce the most innovative, 

cost-effective, and operationally effective results. 

The budget request for the Missile Defense Agency would reduce 

the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system from a 

planned procurement of nine batteries to six batteries in the future-years defense program (FYDP), and the number of THAAD 

interceptors was reduced correspondingly by 122 compared to the 

plan presented in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. Given that 

the combatant commander interest in THAAD remains 

undiminished, the committee is disappointed to see these planned 

reductions to the THAAD system. In testimony to the committee, 

LTG Richard Formica, the Commander of U.S. Army Space and 

Missile Defense Command, and Commander of the Joint Functional 

Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense, explained 

that the choice of how many THAAD batteries to procure in the 

FYDP came down to considering the missile defense ‘‘priority between investing in the Homeland and investing in the region.’’ 

However, the committee understands that the Department plans to 

continue THAAD production beyond the FYDP, including plans to 

maintain a procurement objective of 503 missiles. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

Previous difficulties with the THAAD production line have delayed the program, and resulted in slower production than planned. 

These production rate issues appear to be close to resolution. The 

committee notes that the THAAD production line will remain open 

through fiscal year 2017, including the production of two THAAD 

batteries for the United Arab Emirates, and will be capable of producing additional THAAD systems in the future. The committee 

encourages the Department to explore options to restore THAAD 

production to higher levels in the future. Furthermore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million for additional procurement of THAAD interceptors, as described elsewhere in this report. 

In October 2011, the THAAD system conducted a successful initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) flight test, intercepting two targets nearly simultaneously. This test, using the 

operational THAAD soldiers, represented operationally realistic 

conditions with fielded equipment. Based on lessons learned from 

this test, MDA decided to add a new flight test in 2012 to gain experience with THAAD and debris mitigation in a flight test to integrate THAAD with Aegis BMD, and Patriot all operating simultaneously. This will take place prior to the first operational test involving THAAD, Aegis BMD, and Patriot PAC–3 defending against 

five separate targets in flight. The committee believes this integration flight test, described by the Director of MDA as the ‘‘largest, 

most complex missile defense ever attempted,’’ is a useful risk mitigation step before the first multi-system operational test in 2013. 

In testimony to the committee in April 2012, the Director of 

MDA stated that the ‘‘greatest future enhancement for both homeland and regional missile defense in the next 10 years is the development of the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) satellites, 

which will provide fire control quality track data of raids of hostile 

ballistic missiles over their entire flight trajectories. . .’’. He also 

noted that ‘‘the need for persistent, full trajectory, tracking of ballistic missiles is one of the war-fighter’s highest development priorities as stated in the 2012 STRATCOM PCL [U.S. Strategic Command’s Prioritized Capabilities List].’’ 

In 2011, the Missile Defense Executive Board, the Department’s 

acquisition oversight body for missile defense, directed U.S. Strategic Command to conduct an assessment of the cost and performance of the three alternative remote missile defense sensor systems—including PTSS, the Airborne Infrared system, and forwardbased AN/TPY–2 radars—to make recommendations for the fiscal 

year 2013 budget request. Strategic Command’s recommendations 

are reflected in the budget request, which includes $276.3 million 

to continue development of PTSS, ends the Airborne Infrared program as a program of record (Congress appropriated no funds for 

it in fiscal year 2012), and would stop procurement of forwardbased AN/TPY–2 radars at five, rather than nine. This assessment, 

based on operational considerations, had participation from the geographic combatant commands, the Joint Staff, Air Force Space 

Command, the Joint Functional Component Commands under U.S. 

Strategic Command, the DOD Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. In addition, the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

DOD CAPE is currently performing an Independent Cost Estimate 

and technical evaluation of PTSS that is due in October 2012. 

In June 2011, the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

wrote to the committee that, ‘‘the Joint Staff supports PTSS as the 

most cost effective future sensor providing assured access and persistent tracking coverage in an integrated Ballistic Missile Defense 

Architecture.’’ He also noted that he fully concurred with the assessment of the Joint Functional Component Commander for Integrated Missile Defense for U.S. Strategic command that ‘‘PTSS 

would provide a capability that increases our forces’ ability to defend against larger raids and would reduce our reliance on terrestrial based radar systems and airborne sensor platforms that require overseas basing agreements.’’ 

Given the strong military support for PTSS as the most cost-effective means of providing persistent tracking and targeting of ballistic missiles for homeland and regional missile defense, and its 

expected operational benefits, the committee supports continuing 

with development of PTSS as a high priority program. 

Cyber research, development, test, and evaluation, and 

training infrastructure 

The Department of Defense’s new strategic guidance emphasizes 

the importance of operating effectively in cyberspace and states 

that the United States will ‘‘invest in advanced capabilities to defend its networks, operational capability, and resiliency in cyberspace’’. To the Department’s credit, cyber was one of the few areas 

where the DOD increased its investments in both defensive and offensive capabilities. 

Developing and testing these cyber capabilities and training personnel effectively for cyber operations requires a cyber infrastructure that can be used by the research community, the acquisition 

community for development and testing (both developmental and 

operational), and the operational community for training, exercises, 

and rehearsals. While this infrastructure is necessary for all these 

missions, it is typically referred to as ‘‘cyber test and evaluation 

(T&E) infrastructure’’, or simply ‘‘cyber ranges’’. 

Despite the importance of this cyber T&E infrastructure, comprehensive oversight and strategic planning for long-term funding, 

personnel plans, and modernization investments do not exist. 

There is a significant disconnect between the DOD’s policy statements to increase cyber operations and security, and its lack of attention to its cyber ranges. The last few years have seen a decline 

in the funding and the personnel attached to a number of key 

DOD-wide cyber ranges—while the demand for more rigorous testing and training has increased. 

Currently, there are a number of cyber ranges either in operation 

or still undergoing development that could be considered ‘‘national 

assets’’ due to their scope and capabilities, and that could be components of a broader federated cyber range infrastructure for the 

DOD. 

The National Cyber Range (NCR) was developed by the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) with the goal of creating a secure, self-contained facility that could rapidly emulate 

complex defense and commercial networks, allowing for the cost-efVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

fective and timely validation of cyber technologies. The NCR is currently in a 1 year beta operation phase and is in the process of securing Sensitive Compartmented Information security accreditation. In a letter to the committee in June 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics stated 

that the NCR would transition to U.S. Cyber Command 

(CYBERCOM), but CYBERCOM has not agreed to this plan, and 

there are no funds requested for CYBERCOM to operate and support the range. Hence the future of the NCR, an investment of 

$116.0 million through fiscal year 2011, is unknown. The fiscal 

year 2013 budget request contains only $1.8 million for DARPA to 

close out the contract. 

The Joint Information Operations Range (JIOR) is a nation-wide 

network of 68 nodes for live, virtual, and constructive operations 

across the full spectrum of security classifications. Originally operated by the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), it was transferred to 

the Joint Staff in fiscal year 2011. However, funding and personnel 

are being reduced. Only 39 research, development, test, and evaluation and training events are planned for fiscal year 2012 compared to 60 events that were conducted in fiscal year 2011. 

The DOD Cyber/Defense Information Systems Agency Information Assurance Range is an operationally realistic environment for 

emulating the Global Information Grid Information Assurance/ 

Computer Network Defense capabilities that is used for research 

and development, test and evaluation, and training. Funding and 

personnel are relatively constant over the out-years, but the number of RDT&E and training events planned at this range is also declining. 

In addition, U.S. Cyber Command has developed a virtual training environment for the DOD annual Cyber Flag exercise that has 

the potential to be integrated with other environments and ranges. 

This range supports training operations involving friendly, neutral, 

and adversarial participants, and is instrumented for situational 

awareness and training assessments. 

Lastly, there is the potential to broaden the scope of uses of the 

Joint Systems Integration Center/Joint System Integration and 

Interoperability Lab that was formerly under JFCOM and now 

under the Joint Staff. While the current focus of this range is to 

replicate operational command and control networks and assess 

system interoperability, its capabilities could be used for broader 

information assurance assessments and activities, including direct 

linkage to the JIOR. 

Recently, through prompting, the Department has recognized the 

need to take a more strategic view of its cyber ranges. In a report 

to Congress requested in section 933 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), Report 

on Acquisition and Oversight of Department of Defense Cyberspace 

Operations Capabilities, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics stated that the Department’s 

Cyber Investment Management Board has directed the Director of 

the Test Resources Management Center and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to develop an enterprise roadmap for 

cyber T&E infrastructure capabilities. Furthermore, the committee 

is awaiting a brief on the Department’s analysis of T&E resources 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

needed to address the capability gaps outlined by the ‘‘2010 Test 

and Evaluation Strategic Plan’’—a reporting requirement from the 

House report accompanying H.R. 1540 (H. Rpt. 112–78) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. 

However, these activities have not yet addressed the key issue of 

centralized oversight and management of these or potentially new 

cyber ranges. While the committee sees the management of cyber 

ranges as a natural extension of the Department’s oversight of the 

Major Range and Test Facilities Base through the Test Resources 

Management Center, the committee believes that the Department 

should conduct its own evaluation. Hence, the committee directs 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, 

working with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, and 

the Director of the Test Resources Management Center to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees 180 days after the 

enactment of this Act on the determination of an entity within the 

Department that will have oversight of the cyber T&E range infrastructure, funding and personnel. 

In addition to identifying the management structure for the 

cyber ranges, this report shall identify the entities (e.g., such as executive agents) that will provide funding and resources for the operation and modernization of the ranges, as well as the mechanisms for the allocation of range resources to range users. The committee expects that future budget requests will not simply arrest 

but reverse the decline in funding and activities at the Department’s cyber ranges, commensurate with the importance that the 

Department attaches to the cyber mission. 

Department of Defense labs workforce and infrastructure 

As a key element of the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) roughly $12.0 billion per year science and technology portfolio, its laboratories contribute to a broad range of science and technology activities, ranging from conducting Nobel-prize winning basic research to 

rapidly developing and fielding capabilities for the warfighter. The 

lab enterprise includes 62 organizations spread across 22 states 

with a total workforce of about 60,000 employees, more than half 

of whom are degreed scientists and engineers. In certain critical 

national security-related areas, these organizations—and more importantly, the highly skilled scientists, engineers and technicians in 

them—are national assets. 

The committee understands that among the numerous challenges 

facing the DOD lab enterprise, two key issues require focused and 

sustained attention: 

(a) recruiting and retaining the best and brightest scientists, 

engineers, and technicians; and 

(b) modernizing aging infrastructure. 

Congress has provided a number of authorities to the labs over 

the years, including direct hiring authority of scientists and engineers with advanced degrees. However, in testimony before the 

Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services on April 17, 

2012, it appears that there may be a need for the labs to have a 

similar authority for scientists, engineers, and technicians with unVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

dergraduate technical degrees with unique skills, expertise, and experience. Hence, the committee directs each service science and 

technology executive, consulting with the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Research and Engineering and the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act that will describe whether direct hiring authority of undergraduate scientists and engineers is required, and provide an explanation why existing authorities under the laboratory 

personnel demonstration program authorized by section 342 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public 

Law 103–337), as amended, are not sufficient to meet this need for 

direct hiring authority. 

Concerning aging laboratory infrastructure, the committee is 

pleased that the Army has initiated a survey of its laboratory infrastructure and directs the Navy and Air Force to undertake similar 

surveys of its laboratory infrastructure. In addition, the committee 

understands the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 

Engineering is also conducting a survey of the DOD’s laboratories. 

The committee directs the services to brief the congressional defense committees on the results of their surveys no later than 

March 1, 2013. 

Dry Combat Submersible 

The committee notes that U.S. Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM) has deferred plans for the foreseeable future to procure Dry Combat Submersible-Light and associated Future Dry 

Deck Shelter Extension Modifications in light of higher priority requirements and budget constraints. The committee also notes 

USSOCOM intends to continue forward with modified plans to field 

a single Dry Combat Submersible variant. The committee expects, 

consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics will make a determination, prior to a milestone B decision, on whether to treat the 

Dry Combat Submersible program as a Major Defense Acquisition 

Program. 

Energy efficiency research and development coordination 

and transition 

The committee is encouraged by the Defense Department’s efforts to coordinate with the Department of Energy in pursuing and 

evaluating energy efficient technologies. The wide variety of investments made by the Defense Department towards reducing energy 

usage has already illustrated savings; however, the numerous organizations pursuing these initiatives within the Defense Department 

and other federal agencies also presents increasing potential for 

duplicative research and development as well as successful technologies not identified and effectively transitioned. The continued 

cooperation and combination of technical expertise as coordinated 

in the July 2010, memorandum of understanding (MOU) between 

the Departments of Defense and Energy is important in maximizing the return on these investments. The committee encourages 

the Defense Department to continue both internal efforts and coVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

ordination with other agencies to manage ongoing and planned energy efficiency research and development as well as continuing to 

establish processes for effectively transitioning technologies for 

broader application across the Department of Defense. 

Hexavalent chromium 

The committee is encouraged by the Defense Department’s efforts to reduce and eliminate materials identified by the Department of Defense Chemical and Material Risk Management Directorate. In particular, the Department outlined aggressive plans to 

reduce the use of hexavalent chromium. The committee supports 

the Department’s efforts to continue to pursue research, development, testing, and evaluation of substitute solutions as well as effective transition into existing and future programs of record. 

Human bone collections for Department of Defense research 

The committee understands the importance of the Department of 

Defense (DOD) to conduct research and study collections of human 

bones. This research has contributed to the development of personal protective equipment, improved medical procedures, as well 

as medical devices for wounded service members. Furthermore, the 

committee understands that collections currently utilized by DOD 

may require a significant wait-time to conduct the necessary research and the collections may lack the demographic diversity in 

size and other characteristics needed to represent the U.S. armed 

services today. 

The committee encourages the DOD to utilize as broad of a spectrum of publicly available bone collections as possible and relevant 

when conducting research requiring the use of human bones. 

Hypersonics ground test and evaluation capabilities and 

workforce 

Crucial to advancing the field of hypersonics that will support 

the development of advanced weapons systems, is a robust ground 

test and evaluation infrastructure that enables a broad range of research and development capabilities. Whether for vehicle aerodynamics, thermal design, or propulsion system development, 

ground test facilities are crucial to not only reducing risk in development, but for the research community to expand foundational 

knowledge in this area of aeronautics, as well as to increase confidence in computational design tools. 

Much of the U.S. hypersonics test and evaluation infrastructure—primarily shared between the Department of Defense (DOD) 

and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 

but also including some capabilities in other parts of the government and the private sector—is dated; existing facilities have limits 

in either test duration, or in accurately replicating the physics of 

hypersonic flows, or in the size of the models that can be tested. 

Furthermore, the development of hypersonic air vehicles—including gliders or those with air breathing propulsion—has experienced 

periods of increasing and decreasing demand in the past few decades. This situation has led to a large degree of uncertainty in the 

demand for hypersonic test and evaluation facilities and hence they 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

have been a target for cost savings in the current fiscal environment. 

However, the DOD’s new defense strategic guidance emphasizes 

the importance of projecting power despite anti-access/area denial 

challenges. In addition to rebalancing focus towards the Asia-Pacific region, the guidance states that the U.S. military ‘‘will invest 

as required to ensure its ability to operate effectively in anti-access 

and area denial (A2/AD) environments.’’ 

The committee notes that the wide expanses of distances in the 

Asia-Pacific region, the growing A2/AD threat which requires greater stand-off distances, and the increasing need in modern warfare 

for fast response times for time-critical targeting all point to the 

need for the Department to invest in high-speed weapon and platform technologies, including hypersonics. 

The committee notes that the state of the Nation’s hypersonics 

ground test and evaluation facilities and workforce have not received adequate attention over the years facing both threats of 

divesture as well as gradual decay, and is concerned that the broad 

developmental hypersonics community needs renewed attention. 

Hence, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 

conduct a study on the ability of the Air Force air and ground test 

and evaluation infrastructure facilities, including wind tunnels and 

air test ranges, as well as associated instrumentation, to support 

defense hypersonic test and evaluation activities for the near and 

far term. The study should consider the needs of research and technology development as well as potential future DOD weapons programs. The Secretary shall incorporate the results of the study into 

a master plan for requirements and proposed investments to meet 

the DOD needs through 2025. The Secretary of the Air Force shall 

consult with the secretaries of the other military departments, the 

Directors of the appropriate defense agencies, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (who oversees the 

Joint Technology Office on Hypersonics), and the Director of the 

Test Resource Management Center to assess the requirements 

needed to support hypersonic research, development, test, and evaluation throughout the DOD and to include all DOD requirements 

in the master plan. In addition, the Secretary shall consult with 

NASA and leverage current studies under the National Partnership 

for Aeronautical Testing. 

The study shall contain the following: 

(a) Document the current condition and adequacy of the Air 

Force test and evaluation infrastructure required to support 

hypersonic research and development within DOD; 

(b) Identify test and evaluation infrastructure that could be 

used to support DOD hypersonic research and development 

outside the Department of the Air Force and assess means to 

ensure the availability of such capabilities to the DOD now and 

in the future; and 

(c) Include a time phased plan to acquire required hypersonic 

research and development test and evaluation capabilities including identification of the resources necessary to acquire any 

needed capabilities that are currently not available. 

The Secretary shall submit a report of the findings of this study 

not later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

According to section 139d(a)(5)(D) of the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009 (Public Law 111–23), the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Developmental Test and 

Evaluation (DT&E) shall provide advocacy, oversight, and guidance 

to elements of the acquisition workforce responsible for developmental test and evaluation. In addition, section 139d(b)(1)(A) of 

WSARA mandates that the service acquisition executive of each 

military department develops plans to ensure the military department concerned has provided appropriate resources for developmental test organizations with adequate numbers of trained personnel. 

Hence, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation, dual-hatted as the Director of the Test 

Resource Management Center, shall work with the Air Force acquisition executive, as well as the Commanders of the Air Force Materiel Command and the Air Force Research Laboratory, to ensure 

that the following objectives are met: 

(a) Develop and sustain the expertise of the hypersonics test 

and evaluation workforce; and 

(b) Develop the next generation of hypersonics T&E experts 

via Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics efforts. 

The DASD for DT&E, along with the two Air Force officials identified, shall brief the congressional defense committees no later 

than 180 days after the enactment of this Act on what specific 

steps are being taken to meet these objectives. 

Internet cartography 

One of the foundations of military operations are up-to-date 

maps that vary in scale and detail to enable commanders to visualize the terrain, understand the operational situation, plan 

courses of action, and create a common understanding with subordinates and peers. The Department of Defense (DOD) for decades 

has supported a combat support defense agency whose mission has 

solely or largely been focused on mapping, charting and geodesy. 

In the cyber domain, the need to understand the operational ‘‘terrain’’ is no less important. Yet, DOD has never established a telecommunications and computer network mapping program to address Department-wide requirements for intelligence, network defense, campaign planning, exercises and wargames, support to military operations, targeting, and establishing a common operational 

picture. The National Security Agency (NSA) certainly collects and 

analyzes a wealth of data on foreign networks, but it does so only 

to support its mission set, and not on a comprehensive or consistent basis. Other DOD components map the cyber terrain in 

even more sporadic and limited ways. 

In part, this basic need has not been met because it has been 

considered to be too hard—the Internet appears to be too complex, 

too large in scale, and experiencing too rapid changes. In addition, 

collecting the necessary detail accurately at the necessary volume 

and speed was considered technically too difficult. 

This appears to be changing. Commercial capabilities exist that 

hold promise for meeting the needs of U.S. Cyber Command and 

the intelligence community. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

The committee encourages the Cyber Command J–3, the NSA 

Threat Operations Center, and the Defense Information Systems 

Agency-managed Community Data Center to collaborate on a pilot 

program to demonstrate a capability to produce detailed, accurate 

Internet maps, update them rapidly, display them interactively, 

and overlay enriching information. The committee believes that an 

effective pilot demonstration program could be conducted inexpensively, and encourages the Department to pursue such efforts with 

available resources. 

The committee also directs the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy, to undertake a study of DOD’s broad needs for cyberspace 

mapping and make a recommendation on whether DOD needs to 

create a focused program and assign the mission to one or more organizations to manage. The Vice Chairman shall brief the congressional defense committees on this assessment by March 1, 2013. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology—Lincoln Laboratory 

improvement project 

As a designated Department of Defense Federally Funded Research and Development Center, Lincoln Laboratory conducts research and development pertinent to national security on behalf of 

the military services, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the intelligence community, and other government agencies. The committee understands that the Air Force and Lincoln Laboratory are 

considering modernizing and improving some of the Laboratory’s 

research facilities required for the development of certain systems 

and technology for national security needs. 

The committee strongly urges the Department of Defense to expedite its deliberations with the Office of Management and Budget 

to develop a path forward to permit the Air Force to conclude an 

arrangement with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for 

improving and modernizing the Lincoln Laboratory complex at 

Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts. 

Medical Countermeasures Initiative 

The budget request included $98.9 million in a variety of defense-wide research and development budget lines for the Medical 

Countermeasures Initiative (MCMI). This initiative is intended to 

advance significantly the development and manufacturing of biodefense medical countermeasures, including vaccines and therapeutics. Such advances are important to meet the growing risks of 

biological threats, including genetically engineered threats, potential terrorist threats, and naturally occurring disease outbreaks 

like pandemic influenza. 

The committee notes that this initiative is a coordinated and collaborative interagency effort, guided by updated national strategy 

and guidance documents, and involves particularly close cooperation between the Department of Defense and the Department of 

Health and Human Services. Congress has previously encouraged 

such interagency collaboration and coordination, and the committee 

commends the administration for placing a priority on improving 

the medical countermeasures capability of the nation, particularly 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

countermeasures to protect military forces against biological 

threats. 

The MCMI program is intended to establish an advanced development and manufacturing facility on a cost-shared basis with industry and academia. The Department will not own the facility, 

which will ensure this approach is more cost-effective and efficient 

than would otherwise be the case. 

The committee notes that section 1601 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), directed the Secretary of Defense to ‘‘carry out a program to accelerate the research, development and procurement of biomedical 

countermeasures, including but not limited to therapeutics and 

vaccines, for the protection of the Armed Forces . . .’’. The committee believes the MCMI program is an important effort to meet 

this requirement. 

Naval electromagnetic railgun projectiles 

The Navy is developing an electromagnetic rail gun for engagements of surface and air threats at ranges up to 200 nautical miles. 

The committee expressed concerns with the program last year, but 

now feels that the Navy is making progress in overcoming the various technical challenges on the launcher. However, much remains 

to be done on the development of suitable projectiles. 

The committee is aware that in the past, the Navy and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) discussed collaborating on projectile development, but no serious joint efforts 

emerged. The committee now understands that the Navy and 

DARPA are planning to work together on projectile development, 

including hardening and guidance/navigation systems. The technologies may include low cost sensors tolerant of high accelerations 

and temperatures, advanced materials, modeling and simulation, 

and exo-atmospheric control systems. Given the investments made 

to date in the launcher, the committee fully supports this collaboration. The committee also encourages the Navy and the Air Force 

to collaborate on this project given the Air Force’s expertise in 

hypersonics, as well as high-speed, high acceleration fusing and 

warhead technologies. 

Naval Engineering Education Center 

The committee notes that the Navy faces significant challenges 

in training and hiring the next-generation of naval engineers. As 

former Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter said in 2007, ‘‘Hiring 

top-quality people who have experience with large shipbuilding programs is essential. The ability to assign an experienced and capable team must be a precondition to a program’s initiation. Finding 

and developing the people we need is easier said than done, and 

it will take time to rectify this problem, but we cannot ignore the 

leverage that can be obtained by putting the right, experienced and 

prepared people, in the right positions.’’ The Naval Engineering 

Education Center (NEEC) was established in 2010 to help address 

the issues identified by then-Secretary Winter and now supports 

research and educational opportunities for more than 100 students 

at member universities with the goal of attracting and retaining 

qualified naval engineering talent. The committee commends the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

Navy for proactively working to address its naval engineering 

workforce issues and has been impressed with the success of the 

program in meeting its goals to date. 

However, the committee is concerned that the Navy has not identified a long-term, stable funding source for the NEEC. The committee understands that, to date, the NEEC has been substantially 

funded by Operation and Maintenance funds provided to Navy laboratories to pay for overhead expenses. The committee believes this 

is an unsustainable funding arrangement and is concerned that 

continuing in such a way will hinder the growth and effectiveness 

of the NEEC over time. The committee believes robust and predictable funding is important to sustaining meaningful research activities, recruiting students to participate in the program, and ensuring professors and Navy personnel remain fully engaged. 

In light of these concerns, the committee directs the Secretary of 

the Navy to provide a report, not later than December 31, 2012, 

outlining: (1) the Navy’s plan to ensure the sustainability of the 

NEEC; (2) the potential funding sources to provide robust and predictable support to the program; (3) the projected funding levels for 

the NEEC across the future-years defense program; (4) a value assessment of the NEEC to date in meeting the goals of the program; 

and (5) the metrics the Navy will use to measure the success of the 

program in future years. 

Support for the Minerva Research Initiative 

The budget request included $19.4 million in PE 61110D8Z for 

Department of Defense Basic Research Initiatives. Of this amount, 

$16.5 million was requested for the Minerva Research Initiative. 

The Minerva program was established by then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in 2008 as a way to improve the Department’s 

understanding of social, cultural, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to U.S. national security 

policy. The current Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has since 

expressed his support for the initiative. 

The committee supports the Department’s fiscal year 2013 funding request for Minerva, despite a significant cut in the program’s 

fiscal year 2012 appropriations that unfortunately impacted the 

number of new research grants. The committee believes that the 

research supported by Minerva is more important than ever in today’s uncertain geopolitical environment. It is important to develop 

a deeper understanding for responses to significant events and 

issues such as the Arab awakening, the continuing—and growing 

in some regions—threat of violent Islamic extremism, and the dynamics of resource-driven conflicts in many parts of the world. In 

addition, it is vital to gain a better understanding of, and respond 

to, the trends and developments in China’s military growth and 

modernization, strategic interests, and technological advances, particularly as they relate to the People’s Liberation Army’s role in 

setting priorities and influencing China’s national security, economic, and foreign policy agenda. 

To this end, the committee encourages the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Research and Engineering and the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Policy to ensure that fiscal year 2013 funds for the Initiative properly reflect the new strategic defense guidance, pubVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

lished by the Department of Defense in 2012. The committee also 

urges the Initiative to invest in nationally recognized academic experts for the chairs at the professional military education institutes. Lastly, the committee encourages the Department to ensure 

that funding for Minerva-type research increases in the individual 

services. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(79) 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Operation and maintenance funding (sec. 301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at the levels 

identified in section 4301 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Energy and Environmental Provisions 

Department of Defense guidance on environmental exposures at military installations (sec. 311) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to issue guidance relating to how the military 

departments and other defense agencies deal with the possible exposure of individuals to environmental contamination at military 

installations. 

Section 314 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) directed the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an assessment of 

possible exposures to environmental hazards on military installations and examine related policies and processes of the Department 

of Defense (DOD) and other aspects of how environmental exposures are handled. On May 1, 2012, the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) issued its final report entitled, DOD Can Improve Its 

Response to Environmental Exposures on Military Installations 

(GAO–12–412). As this title implies, the GAO found various limitations in existing DOD policies and processes that impact adversely 

on the Department’s ability to address environmental exposures of 

people living and working at military installations. To address 

these deficiencies, GAO made a number of recommendations, to include: 

1. Establishing procedures to track and document status and 

nature of DOD responses to the Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) recommendations and findings 

of significant risk, and to update the Memorandum of Understanding between DOD and ATSDR to reflect these new procedures; 

2. Establishing a policy that identifies when installations 

should consider requesting public health assessments in addition to the initial assessments at National Priorities List sites; 

and 

3. Provide guidance on what actions, if any, DOD should 

take to identify and address possible health risks faced by individuals from past exposures at military installations. 

DOD, in its comments on the GAO recommendations, concurred 

with part of the first recommendation, but did not concur with part 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

of the first recommendation or with the second or third recommendation. 

The committee agrees that these recommendations would help 

improve the policies and procedures within the DOD regarding the 

handling of possible environmental exposures at military installations, would result in more consistent responses to these issues 

throughout Department, and would advance the goal of providing 

safe and environmentally sound living and working conditions on 

military installations. 

Funding of agreements under the Sikes Act (sec. 312) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) to allow funds committed by the 

Department of Defense in a cooperative agreement to be made in 

a lump sum and to be placed in an interest bearing account with 

the interest available to be applied for the same purposes as the 

principal. 

Limitation on availability of funds for procurement of alternative fuel (sec. 313) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of 

Defense in fiscal year 2013 from being obligated or expended for 

the production or sole purchase of an alternative fuel if the cost exceeds the cost of traditional fossil fuels used for the same purpose, 

except for continued testing purposes. 

The committee notes that in December 2011, the Defense Logistics Agency, on behalf of the Department of the Navy, purchased 

450,000 gallons of biofuels for $12.0 million, which equates to 

$26.66 a gallon. According to the Department of the Navy it was 

the single largest purchase of biofuel in government history and 

was carried out in order to ‘‘demonstrate the capability of a Carrier 

Strike Group and its air wing to burn alternative fuels.’’ The Department of the Navy noted that, despite the use of operation and 

maintenance funds for the purchase, the demonstration is deemed 

a research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) initiative as 

justification for the higher cost per gallon. 

The committee also notes that the Vice Chief of Naval Operations testified before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support on May 10, 2012, regarding pressure on readiness 

accounts from increased fuel prices that ‘‘every $1 increase in the 

price per barrel of fuel results in approximately $31M of additional 

cost annually above our budgeted level.’’ Therefore, the high cost of 

fuel has direct and detrimental impact on other readiness accounts. 

The committee strongly supports initiatives undertaken by the 

Department of Defense to reduce the fuel demand of the operational forces through affordable new technologies that increase 

fuel efficiency and offer alternative sources of power. But given the 

pressure placed on current and future defense budgets, the committee is concerned about the use of operation and maintenance 

funds to pay significantly higher costs for biofuels being used for 

RDTE efforts. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop and promulgate guidance to the military services 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

and defense agencies on the difference between the operational use 

of alternative fuels versus continued RDTE initiatives. 

Subtitle C—Logistics and Sustainment 

Repeal of certain provisions relating to depot-level maintenance (sec. 321) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 

amendments to provisions relating to depot-level maintenance 

made by sections 321 and 327 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81). 

Sections 321 and 327 were intended to make the existing requirements more ‘‘visible and readily understood’’ without making 

any substantive change. However, the new language included 

changes that could significantly impact the balance of work between the public and private sectors. For example: 

• Before the enactment of the new provisions, section 2460 of 

title 10, United States Code, excluded major modifications and upgrades from the definition of depot-level maintenance. The amendments made by section 321 eliminated this exclusion. 

• Before the enactment of the new provisions, section 2460 and 

section 2464 of title 10, United States Code, excluded nuclear aircraft carrier refueling availabilities from the definition of depotlevel maintenance and from the requirement for core logistics capabilities. The amendments made by sections 321 and 327 eliminated 

these exclusions. 

• Before the enactment of the new provisions, section 2464 excluded special access programs. The amendments made by section 

327 eliminated this exclusion. 

• Before the enactment of the new provisions, section 2464 applied only to programs of record. The amendments made by section 

327 extended the applicability of the provision to any military 

equipment that ‘‘is fielded in support of operations.’’ 

Moreover, even language changes that the Department of Defense has assessed to have no substantive impact—such as the 

change in terminology from ‘‘core logistics capabilities’’ to ‘‘core 

depot-level maintenance and repair capabilities’’—may have unintended consequences. 

The Department of Defense has indicated that it will attempt to 

address problems caused by the new language through creative interpretation of the statutory language and the issuance of multiple 

waivers (including categorical waivers) to the core logistics requirements in section 2464 and the so-called ‘‘50–50’’ requirements in 

section 2466 of title 10, United States Code. While it appears that 

this approach will enable the department to get through fiscal year 

2012 without major disruption of public sector or private sector 

depot activities, extensive reliance on questionable statutory interpretations and waivers to comply with a statute that is otherwise 

unworkable is not good precedent or good policy. 

While it might be possible to fix specific problems in the new 

statute through targeted amendments, the committee is concerned 

that such targeted amendments could themselves raise difficult 

issues of interpretation. The previous balance between public and 

private sectors was achieved not only by statutory language, but 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

also by longstanding policies and practices, some of which differed 

from military department to military department. The new legislation, in its effort to make the statutory language more visible and 

readily understood, has placed many of these longstanding policies 

and practices in question. 

For this reason, the committee concluded that the best alternative is to repeal sections 321 and 327 and restore the former 

statutory language in its entirety. By making this repeal retroactive to the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the committee intends to ensure 

that waivers issued during the period when the amendments made 

by sections 321 and 327 were in effect have no precedential value. 

The committee directs the military departments to interpret the 

restored statute in accordance with longstanding policies and practices that were in place before the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. 

Subtitle D—Reports 

Annual report on Department of Defense long-term corrosion strategy (sec. 331) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 371 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (P.L. 110–181, 10 U.S.C. 2228) to require the Department of 

Defense to provide additional information on corrosion projects in 

reports to Congress, including validated returns on investment for 

completed corrosion projects, activities, and information on how 

corrosion funding is used for military projects, the Technical Corrosion Collaboration pilot program, and other corrosion-related activities. 

Modified deadline for Comptroller General review of annual 

report on prepositioned materiel and equipment (sec. 

332) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

deadline for the annual report on prepositioned materiel and equipment conducted by the Government Accountability Office. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Savings to be achieved in civilian workforce and contractor 

employee workforce of the Department of Defense (sec. 

341) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and begin implementation of a plan 

to achieve savings in funding for the civilian workforce and the 

service contractor workforce of the Department of Defense (DOD) 

that are not less, as a percentage of such funding, than the savings 

in funding for military personnel achieved by the planned reduction 

in military end strength contained in the budget request for fiscal 

year 2012. Current DOD plans call for a reduction in military end 

strength in excess of 5 percent through fiscal year 2017. The committee estimates that a comparable level of savings in the civilian 

and service contractor workforces will total in excess of $5.0 billion 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

over 5 years, over and above any savings that the Department may 

already plan or expect to achieve as a result of initiatives already 

in place. 

The provision would exempt expenses for civilian employees in 

mission critical occupations, personnel employed at military depots, 

and the offices of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, and for contractor employees performing maintenance and 

repair of military equipment, medical services, and financial audit 

services. It would authorize the Secretary to establish additional 

exemptions, if he determines that they are necessary for the performance of critical functions in the interest of national defense. 

The committee concludes that these exceptions provide the Department with ample flexibility to ensure that the Department has the 

capacity it needs to perform its critical missions. The committee expects the Secretary to continue to seek savings with regard to critical functions, such as maintenance and repair of military equipment, even though they are exempt from the reductions under this 

provision. 

The committee acknowledges that the DOD efficiencies initiatives will result in an overall reduction in civilian personnel of almost 2 percent, and additional savings through the freeze on civilian pay increases. The committee is also aware that the efficiencies 

initiatives, coupled with the requirements of section 808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 

112–81), have resulted in significant savings in the service contractor workforce. 

However, these policies were established before the administration’s decision to reduce military end strength by 123,900 over the 

next 5 years—a 6.8 percent reduction for the Army, 3.9 percent reduction for the Navy, 8.3 percent reduction for the Marine Corps 

and 2.3 percent reduction for the Air Force. This provision will ensure that savings achieved in the civilian personnel workforce and 

the contractor employee workforce are brought in line with savings 

from the newer, deeper cuts to military end strength. 

The committee notes that the Comptroller General, in the ‘‘2012 

Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue,’’ concluded that DOD should continue to consolidate or eliminate defense headquarters to achieve additional efficiencies. In the development of plans to reduce federal civilian personnel expenses, particular attention should be paid to reduction of management headquarters. The committee expects the Secretary to take into account 

the strategic workforce plan, and critical capabilities included 

therein, in the development of plans to reduce expenditures for federal civilian personnel of the Department. 

NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 342) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Department of Defense to provide up to $50.0 million in fiscal year 

2013 and subsequent years to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ) for the purposes of: 

(1) improving coordination and cooperation between the special operations forces of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nations; (2) facilitating joint operations by special operations forces of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

NATO nations; (3) supporting command, control, and communications capabilities peculiar to special operations forces of NATO nations; (4) promoting special operations forces intelligence and informational requirements within the NATO structure; and (5) promoting interoperability through the development of common equipment standards, tactics, techniques, and procedures, and through 

execution of multinational education and training programs. Additionally, the recommended provision requires an annual report 

summarizing Department of Defense support to the NSHQ. 

The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense designated 

the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) as the ‘‘Lead 

Component with Executive Agent Responsibilities’’ for the NSHQ 

on November 5, 2010. The committee also notes that the U.S. Army 

continues to retain funding responsibilities for the NSHQ as the 

designated administrative agent for NATO. The committee further 

notes that the Secretary of Defense has directed USSOCOM and 

the Army to complete a Memorandum of Agreement detailing their 

respective roles and responsibilities as they relate to the NSHQ. 

The committee expects funding of the NSHQ will be executed in accordance with the specified Memorandum of Agreement. 

Repeal of redundant authority to ensure interoperability of 

law enforcement and emergency responder training 

(sec. 343) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 372 of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that 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. 

Budget Items 

General Fund Enterprise Business System Realignment 

The budget request included $556.3 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), for administration. 

The committee has received a request from the Army to realign 

$17.2 million into General Fund Enterprise Business System 

(GFEBS) to support the engineering development effort necessary 

to process classified and sensitive transactions and to mitigate the 

risk of exposing classified information. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $17.2 million in OMA for GFEBS realignment. 

Museum funding decrease for ahead of need request 

The budget request included $1.1 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), for Other Service Support, of which $8.1 

million was for the National Museum of the United States Army. 

The Army’s budget growth justification cited, ‘‘exhibits planning, 

fabrication, installation, storage and conversation for the initial 

opening of the museum’’. However, given the museum has yet to 

be built, the committee is concerned that the increase of funding 

requested for museum exhibits is ahead of need. Accordingly, the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

committee recommends a decrease of $8.1 million in OMA for the 

National Museum of the United States Army. 

Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances 

The budget request included $36.6 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), $41.6 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $5.9 billion for Operation and Maintenance, 

Marine Corps, $35.4 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air 

Force (OMAF), and $31.9 billion for Operation and Maintenance, 

Defense-wide (OMDW). 

The committee notes that the sustained challenges associated 

with combat operations in Afghanistan have created a difficult fiscal management situation, especially for the Army and Marine 

Corps. However, the Department of Defense continues to underexecute its Operation and Maintenance (O&M) appropriations. The 

Government Accountability Office has informed the committee that 

the average annual O&M unobligated balances for fiscal years 

2007–2011 were $1.4 billion for the Army, $286.1 million for the 

Navy, $386.5 million for the Air Force, $91.8 million for the Marine 

Corps, and $340.8 million for Defense-wide. These continued excessive unobligated balances are not consistent with sound stewardship of taxpayer dollars. In light of the fiscal management challenges, the committee concludes that certain reductions are appropriate. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $120.0 million to OMA, a decrease of $23.0 million to OMN, a decrease of 

$32.0 million to OMAF, and a decrease of $25.0 million to OMDW. 

U.S. Special Operations Command Operation and Maintenance 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for U.S. Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM). A clerical error placed USSOCOM’s base request of 

$5,091.0 million for Operation and Maintenance incorrectly in the 

‘‘classified programs’’ budget line. Therefore, the committee recommends a transfer of $5,091.0 million from the Classified Programs Operation and Maintenance budget line to the USSOCOM 

Operation and Maintenance budget line, reflecting the amounts 

shown in the budget justification documents. 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency 

The budget request included $557.9 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA). Of this amount, the request included 

$365.0 million for the Global Train and Equip program to build the 

capacity of foreign military forces to meet emerging security 

threats. The requested amount for the Global Train and Equip program would be $15.0 million in excess of the program’s currently 

authorized level for fiscal year 2012 of $350.0 million under section 

1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163), as most recently amended by section 

1204 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 (Public Law 112–81). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

Further, the budget request included $2.6 million for the DSCA’S 

Security Cooperation Assessment Office (SCAO). The SCAO is an 

initiative by DSCA to gather, analyze, and assess the impact of the 

Department’s security cooperation programs and initiatives. The 

committee continues to believe such an assessment of DSCA’s programs is necessary. That is why in the Senate report accompanying 

S. 1235 (S. Rept. 112–26) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012 the committee directed the Comptroller 

General of the United States to conduct such an audit of DSCA’s 

programs and develop recommendations on how to improve DSCA’s 

current activities. The committee looks forward to reviewing the 

Comptroller General’s findings and in a separate section of this report directs the Comptroller General to undertake additional work 

to address the Department’s needs in this area. Therefore the committee recommends a decrease of $17.6 million 

to OMDW for DSCA, consisting of a decrease of $15.0 million to the 

Global Train and Equip program and a decrease of $2.6 million to 

the SCAO. 

Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request 

The budget request included $253.4 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Office of Economic 

Adjustment (OEA), of which $139.4 million was for socioeconomic 

and water/wastewater infrastructure improvements related to the 

relocation of Marines to Guam. 

Given the reevaluation of the relocation of Marines to Guam, the 

committee is concerned that the funds requested for the OEA are 

ahead of need. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease 

of $139.4 million in OMDW for the OEA. 

Enhanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

support to Operation Observant Compass 

The budget request included classified amounts for United States 

Africa Command (AFRICOM) intelligence activities, including support to Operation Observant Compass (OOC). The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million, in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, line 280, to expand and enhance the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support to 

AFRICOM’s OOC—the ongoing operation to support the efforts of 

Ugandan and other regional militaries to remove senior leaders of 

the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) from the battlefield in Central 

Africa. 

The committee supports AFRICOM’s ongoing operation in Central Africa in support of partner nation militaries, and the committee is eager to ensure U.S. service members deployed to advise 

and assist these regional efforts are provided with the resources 

and unique enabling support required to ensure mission success. 

That is why—pursuant to the policy established by the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 

2009 (Public Law 111–172)—in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), the committee recommended and Congress approved a provision permitting the Secretary of Defense to provide not more than $35.0 million in logistics 

support, services, and supplies to the national militaries in the reVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

gion conducting operations to disarm and remove senior elements 

of the LRA. 

The committee notes that AFRICOM has only limited contractorowned and -operated ISR platforms deployed in support of OOC. 

These capabilities are inadequate in multiple respects, most notably their inability to loiter over areas of interest for extended periods of time and to collect and disseminate various forms of intelligence promptly. While the committee is aware of a number of 

temporary and rotational efforts underway to enhance ISR support 

to OOC, the committee believes that without additional resourcing 

the current operation is likely to remain constrained by poor intelligence support. Without adequate ISR resourcing and support the 

committee is concerned that OOC will suffer from a lack of critical 

tipping-and-cueing intelligence capability to find and locate LRA 

forces. 

The committee is concerned that AFRICOM’s current resourcing 

of this mission through the Air Force Big Safari program office and 

its contractors is unnecessarily costly and is not meeting the needs 

of the supported forces. The committee directs the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Intelligence (USDI) and AFRICOM to evaluate alternative capability providers and contracting arrangements, both for 

existing and enhanced intelligence support. 

The committee also notes that there is enduring high demand for 

additional airborne ISR support for AFRICOM and U.S. special operations forces in this region beyond the requirements of the OOC 

mission. The committee directs USDI and AFRICOM to consider 

these needs when making decisions about platforms, sensors, basing, and manning. 

Operation and Maintenance funding for impact aid 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide, includes the following changes from 

the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in 

funding levels are discussed in greater detail in title V of this committee report. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Impact aid for schools with military dependent students .................. 25.0 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities .................................. 5.0 

Total ................................................................................................. 30.0 

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced predictive modeling and simulation methodologies 

The committee recognizes that early integration of advanced predictive modeling and simulation methodologies into program acquisition and life cycle planning can help to avoid cost, reduce cost, 

and increase operational readiness by reducing unscheduled maintenance. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to examine the appropriate applications of advanced predictive modeling and simulation technologies in the acquisition 

process of major weapon system programs, including prior to Milestone B, and provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 30, 2013. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

Air Force strategic basing process 

In Senate report accompanying S. 1253 (S. Rept. 112–26) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the committee directed the Air Force to consider the evaluation of relative 

flying operation costs for each candidate base during its strategic 

basing process. The committee commends recent efforts made by 

the Air Force to do so through the creation of the Air Refueling Received Demand Model. The model accounts for refueling demand 

from lower priority missions, such as the movement of air show assets, during recent years. 

The committee is concerned, however, that the new model excludes evaluation of the demand for the highest priority activities 

as determined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including events where 

the aircraft departs from and returns to its home station. The air 

refueling demand for Priority 1 and Priority 2 sorties includes wartime and counterdrug missions, missions directed by the President, 

the Secretary of Defense, or combatant commanders, Coronet missions, and the deployment of assets in support of homeland defense. In total, these events account for 16 percent of the total operational demand for air refueling platforms. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to report to Congress no later than 90 days after enactment of this 

Act, on how the demand for all refueling events in which the aircraft departs from and returns to home station, regardless of the 

events’ relative Joint Chiefs of Staff Mission Priority, will be accounted for in the Air Refueling Receiver Demand Model in the 

strategic basing process and future basing decisions. The committee further encourages the Air Force to assign greater value to 

the demand for high-priority missions, as established by the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, in the model. 

Canines in support of members of the armed forces 

The committee recognizes the outstanding contribution of military working dogs in Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi 

Freedom, and other military contingency operations. These courageous and talented canines have saved lives, including those of 

service members, through their work in detecting intruders, drugs, 

and improvised explosive devices. The committee recognizes the 

value of these highly trained animals in performing critical and 

varied roles to support both service members and civilians. In particular, the committee acknowledges the sacrifices of those military 

working dogs killed, wounded, or missing in action. The committee 

therefore encourages the Secretary of Defense to honor the service 

of all military working dogs, and especially those who perform exceptionally meritorious service, through appropriate recognition of 

their service. 

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of Department of Defense security cooperation activities 

Over the past decade, the Department of Defense (DOD) has expanded significantly its security cooperation activities. According to 

the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, more than $5.0 billion is 

spent on the DOD security cooperation program annually. DOD acknowledges openly its current inability to assess the impact of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

these activities in the medium- and long-term. The committee, 

however, recognizes that the impact of security cooperation programs, many of which are the cornerstone of our military-to-military relations with our key allies and partners around the globe, 

is difficult to measure. As such, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of DOD’s 

security cooperation programs to examine the effectiveness, efficiency, and medium- and long-term results of DOD’s programs in 

this area to consider the return on investment for these programs, 

and to make recommendations to optimize future security cooperation investments and policies targeted at achieving foreign policy 

objectives. 

The committee hopes the Comptroller General’s review will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of DOD’s security cooperation programs over time, maximize their value to the geographic 

combatant command commanders and U.S. foreign partners, and 

allow DOD to design and implement security cooperation programs 

optimized to meet requirements established by the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

The committee encourages the Comptroller General to consult 

with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low 

Intensity Conflict to identify priority security cooperation programs 

of mutual concern. The Comptroller General shall provide routine 

briefings to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives. 

Consideration of fuel cell systems 

The committee is encouraged by many of the findings and recommendations included in the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

sponsored report, ‘‘Beyond Demonstration: The Role of Fuel Cells 

in DoD’s Energy Strategy,’’ published on October 19, 2011. Among 

other things, this report recommended that Department of Defense 

(DOD) headquarters organizations and the military services: (1) develop and implement procurement models that enable more efficient acquisition of fuel cell systems; (2) consider fuel cell systems 

for meeting electric power, heating, and cooling demands whenever 

new facilities and major renovations are planned and designed; (3) 

consider fuel cell systems when planning and designing backup 

power capability for DOD sites; and (4) consider fuel cell power for 

material handling equipment. The committee directs the DOD to 

report back to the congressional defense committees no later than 

June 1, 2013, on the steps being taken to implement the recommendations of the DLA report, or if the DOD does not intend 

to implement any of the recommendations, to explain the reasons 

behind those decisions. 

Corrosion prevention 

Corrosion prevention at the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

been a priority for the committee because of its potential to increase readiness, improve operational safety, and reduce costs. 

One tactic that has been used to prevent or reduce corrosion is 

the application of protective coatings and paints that are applied 

to DOD weapon systems, military equipment, and infrastructure. 

The committee understands that several DOD components curVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

rently require that such coatings be applied by certified contractors 

using personnel who have been qualified through approved training 

programs. 

The committee directs the Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight to review the use of such certification requirements and determine whether the broader application of qualification standards 

would be in the best interest of the Department. The Director shall 

notify the congressional defense committees on the findings and 

recommendations of this review no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act. 

Corrosion projects’ return on investment and funding for 

corrosion-related activities 

While the committee supports efforts by the Department of Defense (DOD) to adequately address the problem of corrosion and resulting materiel degradation in the design, development and testing of new major weapon systems, the committee is concerned 

about the accuracy of the return on investment (ROI) that the DOD 

has reported on its corrosion projects. In the DOD’s March 2012 

Report to Congress on DOD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Budget 

Materials, it projected an average ROI for projects approved to date 

as in excess of 50:1. The corrosion program ROI is primarily calculated on those projects that are funded, after they are nominated 

by the military departments and reviewed for approval by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff, and to a lesser 

degree on the activities funded. 

In December 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 

however, reported that the military departments are late in validating ROIs for some completed projects. The DOD’s Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan suggests that follow-on reviews with validated ROIs are required for completed projects within 3 years after full project implementation. In 2012, the GAO 

identified that some validated ROIs have been completed, but that 

the DOD did not update the projected ROI in its Report to Congress on DOD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Budget Materials to 

account for a validated ROI. As long as the DOD continues to report only the average projected ROIs and does not include information about the validated ROIs, Congress will lack full visibility into 

the results of the DOD’s efforts to prevent and mitigate corrosion. 

Therefore, the committee directs the DOD Office of Corrosion 

Policy and Oversight to account for validated ROIs, when available, 

in its annual corrosion budget materials report to Congress so that 

it will have the best information on which to base funding-decisions 

and the DOD has more factual data to determine how to best invest corrosion prevention funds. 

The committee is also concerned about the lack of transparency 

about how the DOD is spending the additional funds provided to 

support unfunded requirements. The DOD has consistently identified in its annual Report to Congress on DOD Corrosion Policy and 

Oversight Budget Materials the lack of funding for projects as comprising the majority of its unfunded Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPC) requirement. For the past several years, the DOD has 

also received funding over its CPC budget request and in most 

years DOD has not used the funds to undertake all acceptable miliVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 

tary corrosion projects. The DOD has used the funding for corrosion projects as well as other activities such as research through 

the Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC) pilot program. The 

DOD is required to report the amount of funds requested in the 

budget for each project and activity. But, while the DOD’s annual 

report mentions the TCC as an activity, it has not included specific 

information on the funding amounts for this pilot program. 

Therefore, the committee directs the DOD Office of Corrosion 

Policy and Oversight to include in its Report to Congress on DOD 

Corrosion Policy and Oversight Budget Materials the amount of 

funds used for military corrosion projects, the TCC pilot program, 

and other corrosion-related activities for the preceding fiscal year. 

Critical manufacturing capabilities and capacities 

The committee maintains the view that expanded authority for 

all military industrial facilities to designate Centers of Industrial 

and Technical Excellence significantly improves the Department of 

Defense’s core competencies, repair capabilities, and manufacturing 

functions. As operational tempo declines from drawdowns associated with combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the committee is concerned that sufficient workload is necessary to ensure 

cost efficiency and technical competence in peacetime, while preserving the ability to provide an effective and timely response to 

a mobilization, national defense contingency situations, and other 

emergency requirements. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

identify critical manufacturing capabilities and capacities that 

should be government owned and government operated, identify 

the level of work needed to sustain capabilities, and report to the 

congressional defense committees on these matters no later than 

February 28, 2013. 

Department of Defense inventory management 

Section 328 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) required the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a comprehensive plan for improving DOD 

inventory management systems, with an objective of reducing the 

acquisition and storage of secondary inventory that is excess to requirements. 

In January 2011, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

reported that DOD’s Comprehensive Inventory Management Improvement Plan addressed each of the eight elements required by 

section 328, but would be challenged to meet the aggressive 

timelines and benchmarks in the Plan. 

In May 2012, GAO reported that DOD has made progress in implementing the plan, but that significant challenges remain—particularly in the areas of improving demand forecasting, multi-echelon modeling, and implementing revised guidance on retention 

management. GAO recommended that DOD: (1) periodically reexamine and update targets and timelines for reducing excess onorder and on-hand inventory; (2) incorporate comprehensive, standardized metrics into inventory management guidance; and (3) employ these metrics for monitoring the effectiveness of improved inventory management practices. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness to report to the congressional defense committees, no later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act, on the steps that DOD has taken to implement 

the GAO recommendations. 

Energy performance savings contracts 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) spends billions of dollars on energy costs each year and that 

financing large-scale energy projects can be cost-prohibitive for the 

DOD. Energy Performance Savings Contracts (ESPC) enable the 

DOD to finance energy efficiency upgrades on military installations 

by funding various Energy Conservation Measures, through private 

investments, and receive a guarantee that the energy savings will 

pay for the project. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the potential applicability of ESPC authority to construct power generating plants, and to acquire mobile sources, including electric and 

natural gas-powered vehicles and their associated charging stations 

on military installations, and to make recommendations to the congressional defense committees if changes in law or regulation are 

needed for the Department to pursue efficient and effective initiatives using ESPC authorities. 

Essential role of rare earth materials 

Rare earth materials play an essential role in several critical 

weapons components and systems such as precision-guided munitions, electric ship drives, command and control centers, and aircraft, tanks, and missile systems. The committee notes the predominance of unreliable foreign sources for rare earth materials, 

including China, which provides roughly 94 percent of the world’s 

rare earth oxides and nearly all rare earth metal within the defense-related supply chain and which has repeatedly decreased export quotas and imposed embargoes of these critical materials. 

Even with the development of the domestic-supply chain there may 

be continued reliance on production of certain heavy rare earth elements from China. The importance of rare earth materials for national defense applications necessitates a thorough understanding 

of vulnerabilities in the rare earth supply chain and the development of pragmatic, actionable risk mitigation plans to reduce the 

likelihood of supply interruptions. The committee encourages the 

Department of Defense to carefully consider the role of U.S. producers and potential means to develop reliable domestic sources to 

meet Department rare earth materials requirements. 

Funding shortfalls for minimum capital investment program, facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization, and base operations support 

The committee remains concerned that the failure of the Department of Defense (DOD) to fully fund several critical readiness accounts over the last decade poses a continuing risk to the readiness, training and operational capability of military forces. Base 

operations support, capital investment program (CIP), and Facility 

Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (FSRM) funding are 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

all critical to maintaining durable facilities for the readiness, training, and operations of military forces. Underinvestment in these facilities can lead to increased military construction needs, which 

could otherwise be avoided. 

The Navy was the only military department to fail to fund the 

minimum 6 percent CIP in the Fiscal Year 2013 budget request. 

The committee continues to believe that investment funds included 

in the capital budget of an industrial facility should go to modernize or improve efficiency of facilities equipment, work environment, or processes in direct support of the facility’s mission. The 

committee urges the military departments to allocate adequate resources to meet the congressionally-directed minimum 6 percent for 

CIP requirement. 

The committee is concerned that the level of FSRM funding for 

military installations is not sufficient to meet infrastructure needs. 

Recognizing in this tight budgeting environment that the DOD 

must weigh risks to infrastructure against equipping, training, and 

personnel demands, the cost to repair or replace facilities that have 

not received adequate investments is far greater than preventative 

or restorative maintenance. The committee strongly believes that 

the military departments should fund at least 90 percent of the 

amounts determined by the Facility Sustainment Model, while providing additional funding to support restoration and modernization 

requirements. 

The problem of inadequate funding is compounded in the case of 

joint bases where services calculate FSRM needs differently and 

the services owning the installation does not factor the alternative 

service’s formula into the process leading to insufficient funding to 

address installation needs. The committee is also concerned that 

the adjustment of the allocation of FSRM funds provided to each 

military installation to address the unique and more costly requirements for facilities that are listed or eligible for the National Registry of Historic Places as required by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 may not accurately reflect the actual requirements imposed by the NHPA. 

The committee directs the DOD to review the allocation system 

for FSRM funding to ensure parity in the distribution of funds 

among the military departments and adequate adjustments for 

unique facility requirements, including joint bases and historical 

preservation. The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees on the findings of the review no later than March 1, 2013. 

Ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms 

Section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) established that the design and 

fielding of all future ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms of the armed forces may uniquely reflect the identity of the 

individual military services, provided that the ground combat and 

utility uniforms, to the maximum extent practicable, provide members of every service an equivalent level of performance, 

functionality, and protection commensurate with their respective 

assigned combat missions, minimize the risk to the individual, and 

provide interoperability with other components of individual 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

warfighter systems. Section 352 also required the secretaries of the 

military departments to establish joint criteria for future combat 

uniforms in coordination with the results of a review conducted by 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO). 

In a report to the committee, the Department of Defense (DOD) 

acknowledged that the Department ‘‘can do more and is taking the 

necessary steps to further promote and enhance both ongoing interservice collaboration and life-cycle coordination with the Defense 

Logistics Agency.’’ 

However, the committee is concerned that the joint criteria required by section 352 has not yet been issued and the DOD-established Joint Clothing and Textile Governance Board (JCTGB) has 

not yet established ‘‘a common set of parameters for basic performance characteristics such as protection, concealment, reliability, durability, sensor mitigation, survivability, and network readiness.’’ 

This delay is problematic because the Army is currently in the 

final stages of developing a ‘‘family’’ of camouflage patterns for its 

next ground combat uniform. The committee understands that the 

Army currently plans to make its final selection for this uniform 

in 2013, before the JCTGB is expected to finalize the common parameters for uniform performance characteristics. 

The committee also understands that the Department of the 

Navy has chosen to equip its sailors and marines with different varieties of ground combat uniforms, providing significantly different 

levels of protection. Specifically, while marines and naval special 

warfare have been issued digital camouflage patterns, all other 

Navy units continue to wear an inferior camouflage pattern that 

was developed in the early 1980s possibly leaving sailors in a combat environment at an increased tactical risk. 

The committee concludes that uniforms incorporating the most 

advanced levels of protection should be available to all men and 

women in uniform, regardless of the military service in which they 

serve. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 

to take steps to ensure that: (1) common parameters established by 

the JCTGB are reflected in the Army’s next ground combat uniform 

prior to fielding; and (2) uniforms providing an appropriate level of 

protection are available to all Navy units serving in areas of combat operation. The Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense committees of the steps taken to address these 

issues no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act. 

Lack of competition in Air Force C–17 engine maintenance 

contracting 

The committee remains concerned that the Air Force has failed 

to maximize competition in planned maintenance of the C–17’s 

F117 engine, losing the benefit of the most effective mechanism to 

reduce costs, manage risk, and maximize efficiency in supply chain 

management (SCM). Because the F117 engine is 91 percent similar 

to the commercial family of engines in the PW2000, multiple competitors should be available to provide support, maintenance, and 

sustainment for these engines. However, the F117 sustainment 

strategy timeline briefed to the committee would phase in competition slowly and would not commit the Air Force to competition in 

all areas of SCM and sustaining engineering. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

The committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to exercise 

competitive approaches to the support, maintenance, and 

sustainment of F117 engines to the maximum extent practicable. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to brief the 

congressional defense committees on steps that will be taken to enhance competition in this area and to notify the congressional defense committees of: (1) any deviation from the F117 sustainment 

strategy timeline; and (2) any significant change in projected yearly 

savings with respect to SCM or sustaining engineering. 

Marine Corps depot maintenance activity group 

Recent analysis of the Marine Corps depot maintenance activity 

group (DMAG) conducted by the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) revealed that there is room for improvement with respect to 

the budgeting and management of carryover. The committee commends the Marine Corps for properly managing carryover amounts 

below the allowable limits, especially when compared to the other 

services’ working capital funds. However, the committee is concerned that the Marine Corps underestimated the DMAG’s new orders every year during the 6-year period of review by the GAO, 

from a low of 51 percent to a high of 175 percent. Accordingly, the 

committee encourages the Marine Corps DMAG to improve the 

budgeting and management of carryover by comparing budgeted to 

actual information on carryover and orders and making adjustments to budget estimates as appropriate. 

Modernizing the aging fleet 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense’s new strategic guidance, and future-years defense program, place 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 extremely expensive to maintain and lack dedicated technology insertion programs to replace outdated materials, product forms, and parts that 

dramatically increase operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and 

limit mission availability. 

The committee is aware that commercial aircraft fleets have employed structural aluminum alloys, advanced manufacturing processes, and joining technologies. The committee 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. The 

committee encourages the Air Force to leverage commercially developed and proven technologies and products within its modernization and sustainment activities in order to increase mission 

availability, reduce total ownership costs, and resolve supply chain 

issues. 

Rapid equipping and fielding initiatives 

The committee recognizes that combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in substantial improvements and compression in the processes used to develop and field urgent needs for 

combatant commanders, including organizational clothing and individual equipment. Following the drawdown of Afghanistan, the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

committee encourages the Department of Defense to consider maintaining key elements of the Army Rapid Fielding Initiative, the 

Rapid Equipping Force, and combatant commander level purchasing authority to enable agile responses to future threats. 

Readiness support for unfunded requirements 

The committee remains concerned that in an era of fiscal constraints coupled with high operational tempo, the services have 

chosen to fund readiness accounts below their requirements and 

heavily rely upon Overseas Contingency Operations funding to 

temporarily maintain operational readiness. Furthermore, as a result of almost a decade of combat operations, backlogs of deferred 

ship and aircraft depot maintenance remain unexecuted by the 

services. The committee notes that a failure to address this backlog 

for active and reserve ships and aircraft will continue to jeopardize 

and erode materiel readiness, further reduce the service life of the 

fleet, increase long-term sustainment costs, and further increase 

strategic risk for the Nation. 

Despite these backlogs, the services continue to underfund critical readiness accounts and fail to request any unfunded requirements by the service chiefs in support of the fiscal year 2013 budget request. The committee acknowledges the Department of the 

Navy’s budget request to fully fund their ship depot maintenance 

account to meet 100 percent of their known requirements, and encourages the Department to ensure those funds are carried out for 

their budgeted purpose in fiscal year 2013. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

examine and quantify the existing deferred depot maintenance 

backlogs of the services and provide a report to the congressional 

defense committees by March 30, 2013, with a plan to address the 

existing deferred maintenance backlogs of the services with proposed completion timelines and specific funding amounts. 

Report on Defense Science Board climate change recommendations 

In October 2011, the Defense Science Board issued its report on 

Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security (‘‘DSB report’’). The DSB report, prepared at the 

direction of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, describes observable consequences of climate 

change and offers recommendations on the role of the Department 

of Defense, and other agencies, in adapting and responding to the 

effects on U.S. national security interests. 

The committee is interested in the disposition of the recommendations contained in the DSB report and directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives, by November 1, 

2012, a report addressing the recommendations contained in the 

DSB report. Specifically, the Secretary’s report shall: 

1. address the recommendations of the DSB report with regard to the roles of the Department of Defense, the military departments, and the combatant commands in addressing the 

matters that the DSB report identified as having adverse implications for national and international security; 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 

2. describe the actions taken on each of the DSB recommendations on the role of the Department of Defense; and 

3. identify such changes in law, if any, that would be required to fully implement the recommendations of the DSB report. 

In preparing the report, the Secretary should consider the Intelligence Community Assessment number ICA 2012–08, ‘‘Global 

Water Security’’, and any other reports or information he deems 

appropriate, and shall consult with the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and such other officials, agencies, or organizations as he 

deems appropriate. The report shall be in unclassified form, but 

may include a classified annex, if warranted. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(99) 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Active Forces 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2013, as shown below: 

Service FY 2012 

authorized 

FY 2013 Change from 

Request 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 

Marine Corps ............................................................. 202,100 197,300 197,300 0 ¥4,800 

Air Force .................................................................... 332,800 328,900 329,597 697 ¥3,203 

DOD Total ..................................................... 1,422,600 1,401,000 1,401,697 697 ¥20,903 

The committee supports the Department of Defense fiscal year 

2013 request for active-duty end strengths, with the exception of 

additional Air Force end strength to support force structure 

changes adopted by the committee. The funding to support this end 

strength is contained in title XVII of this Act. 

The committee remains concerned about the impact of the drawdown while the Army and Marine Corps in particular remain engaged in ground combat operations. Adequate dwell time to deployment ratios remain key to ensuring that service members receive 

sufficient time at home to rejuvenate and recover physically and 

mentally from arduous and repeated combat deployments. In addition, sufficient time between deployments allows units to repair 

equipment, train for the full spectrum of future potential missions, 

and build the Nation’s strategic depth to respond to unforeseen 

contingencies. For these reasons, insufficient dwell time undermines readiness and increases risk. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include with 

the budget submission in each of fiscal years 2014 through 2017 a 

statement of estimated deployment to dwell ratios for both active 

and reserve component personnel for that fiscal year based on expected operational demand and requested end strength levels. The 

statement shall include the average unit and individual deployed 

to dwell ratios, as of the end of the fiscal year preceding the budget 

submission, for the active and reserve components of the Army and 

Marine Corps. The statement shall also identify the Army and Marine Corps military occupational specialties and types of units 

which did not achieve the respective service’s dwell time goals. For 

each of these specialties and units, the Army and Marine Corps 

shall identify the average deployed to dwell ratios. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

Additionally, for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2017, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include with the budget 

submission an assessment of whether requested reductions in active-duty end strength are reversible within 1 year, including 

through increased use of the reserve components, if demand assumptions prove incorrect and additional active forces are needed 

during that fiscal year. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2013, as shown below: 

Service FY 2012 

authorized 

FY 2013 Change from 

Request 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 .................................................... 106,700 101,600 106,435 4,835 ¥265 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 71,400 70,500 72,428 1,928 1,028 

DOD Total ..................................................... 847,100 837,400 844,163 6,763 ¥2,937 

Coast Guard Reserve ................................................ 10,000 9,000 9,000 0 ¥1,000 

The committee supports the Department of Defense fiscal year 

2013 request for reserve component end strengths, with the exception of additional Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve end 

strength to support force structure changes adopted by the committee. The funding to support this end strength is contained in 

title XVII of this Act. 

End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the 

reserves (sec. 412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2013, as shown 

below: 

Service FY 2012 

authorized 

FY 2013 Change from 

Request 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 

Navy 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 14,871 566 38 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 2,662 2,888 2,888 0 226 

DOD Total ..................................................... 78,414 77,905 78,471 566 57 

The committee supports the Department of Defense fiscal year 

2013 request for full-time support end strengths, with the exception of additional Air National Guard full-time end strength to support force structure changes adopted by the committee. The fundVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
101 

ing to support this end strength is contained in title XVII of this 

Act. 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 

413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

minimum number of military technicians (dual status) for the reserve components of the Army and Air Force as of the last day of 

fiscal year 2013, as shown below: 

Service FY 2012 

authorized 

FY 2013 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2013 

request 

FY 2012 

authorized 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 8,395 8,445 8,445 0 50 

Army National Guard ................................................. 27,210 28,380 28,380 0 1,170 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 10,777 10,283 10,716 433 ¥61 

Air National Guard .................................................... 22,509 21,101 22,313 1,212 ¥196 

DOD Total ..................................................... 68,891 68,209 69,854 1,645 963 

The committee supports the Department of Defense fiscal year 

2013 request for dual status technicians, with the exception of additional Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard technicians to 

support force structure changes adopted by the committee. The 

funding to support this end strength is contained in title XVII of 

this Act. 

Fiscal year 2013 limitation on number of non-dual status 

technicians (sec. 414) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2013, as 

shown below: 

Service FY 2012 

authorized 

FY 2013 Change from 

Request 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 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 

active duty for operational support (sec. 415) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support under section 115(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, as of September 30, 2013, as shown below: 

Service FY 2012 

authorized 

FY 2013 Change from 

Request 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
102 

Service FY 2012 

authorized 

FY 2013 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2013 

request 

FY 2012 

authorized 

Navy 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 

Military personnel (sec. 421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified in section 4401 of division D of this Act. 

Budget Item 

Military personnel funding changes 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for military personnel 

programs in section 421 of this Act includes the following changes 

from the budget request: 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Basic allowance for housing for full-time National Guard transition ............... 6.0 

Total ................................................................................................................. 6.0 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in Military Personnel funding, pursuant to a legislative provision regarding the payment of the basic allowance for housing for Army and 

Air National Guard members transitioning between active-duty 

service under title 10, United States Code, and full-time National 

Guard service under title 32, United States Code. The provision appears in title VI of this Act. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(103) 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

Subtitle A—Officer Policy 

Extension of relaxation of limitation on selective early discharges (sec. 501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 638a(d)(2) of title 10 to extend until December 31, 2018, the 

authority to convene selection boards to consider the discharge of 

regular officers below the grade of lieutenant colonel or commander 

who have served on active duty for at least 1 year in their current 

grade, are not on a promotion list, and are not eligible for retirement. 

Exception to 30-year retirement for regular Navy warrant 

officers in the grade of chief warrant officer, W–5 (sec. 

502) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend section 1305(a) of title 10, 

United States Code, to increase the total active military service a 

Navy warrant officer in the grade of chief warrant officer, W–5, 

may serve from 30 to 33 years before being statutorily retired for 

length of service. 

Modification of definition of joint duty assignment to include all instructor assignments for joint training and 

education (sec. 503) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend section 668(b)(1)(B) of title 10, 

United States Code, to remove the limitations on the types of instructors included in the definition of ‘‘joint duty assignment’’. The 

current law excludes instructor positions that may provide an officer significant experience in joint matters from inclusion on the 

joint duty assignment list and provides undue deference to Joint 

Professional Military Education Phase II (JPME II) positions. This 

change would allow the Department of Defense to judge all positions based on the significant experience the position provides an 

officer in joint matters. 

The committee believes that instructor duty assignments at the 

three service academies should be structured to the maximum extent possible to allow officers who serve in these capacities to accrue joint experience and credit. Completion of joint professional 

military requirements while assigned to the faculties or officer assignments at the academies should be encouraged, and exchange 

tours and temporary assignments during tours of duty at the service academies should be made available in order to enhance the caVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
104 

reer progression of officers who volunteer for instructor duty at the 

service academies. 

Sense of Senate on inclusion of assignments as academic instructor at the military service academies as joint duty 

assignments (sec. 504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express a 

sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should include 

assignments in which military officers are assigned as instructors 

responsible for preparing and presenting academic courses on the 

faculty of the United States Military Academy, the United States 

Naval Academy, or the United States Air Force Academy as joint 

duty assignments. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management 

Authority for appointment of persons who are lawful permanent residents as officers of the National Guard (sec. 

511) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend section 313(b)(1) of title 32, 

United States Code, to allow a lawful permanent resident to be eligible for appointment as an officer into the National Guard. Section 

12201(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, currently makes lawful 

permanent residents eligible for appointment as officers in the Reserves. 

Reserve component suicide prevention and resilience program (sec. 512) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 1007 of title 10, United States Code, to codify the Suicide Prevention and Community Healing and Response Program for National Guard and reserve component members, and to move it from 

within the Office for Reintegration Programs to the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense. 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities 

Diversity in the armed forces and related reporting requirements (sec. 521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a plan to accurately 

measure the efforts of the Department of Defense to achieve the 

goal of having a sustainable and dynamic pipeline that yields a diverse officer and enlisted corps for the armed forces that reflects 

the population of the United States eligible for military service. 

The provision would require the service secretaries, in consultation 

with the Secretary of Defense, to develop a definition of diversity 

for their respective military services that reflects the culture, mission, and core values of each military service. Finally, the provision 

would require biennial reports to the congressional defense committees beginning July 1, 2013, through July 1, 2017, on the Department’s progress in achieving its diversity goals. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
105 

Modification of authority to conduct programs on career 

flexibility to enhance retention of members of the armed 

forces (sec. 522) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend section 533 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 

Law 110–417) to include full-time active guard and reserve members in the population eligible for the career intermission pilot program, to clarify that accrued leave may be carried forward through 

the period of inactive service, and to clarify that participants in the 

program who become ill or injured during their period of inactive 

service may be processed for retirement or separation under chapters 55 and 61 of title 10, United States Code. 

Authority for additional behavioral health professionals to 

conduct pre-separation medical examinations for posttraumatic stress disorder (sec. 523) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1177(a) of title 10, United States Code, to expand the scope of 

providers that may conduct pre-administrative separation medical 

examinations for post-traumatic stress disorder to include licensed 

clinical social workers and psychiatric nurse practitioners. Under 

current law, only physicians, clinical psychologists, or psychiatrists 

may perform these examinations. This language was requested by 

the Department of Defense, and does not affect the statutory requirement that these examinations be reviewed by appropriate authorities responsible for reviewing and approving separation cases. 

Quarterly reports on involuntary separation of members of 

the armed forces (sec. 524) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

service secretaries to submit to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 30 

days after the end of each quarter of the calendar year in 2013 and 

2014, a report on members of the regular components who were involuntarily separated from active duty. The report would include 

the total number of service members involuntarily separated; the 

number of members separated set forth by grade, by total years of 

service, and by occupational specialty or rating; the number separated who received involuntary separation pay or temporary retired 

pay; the number who completed transition assistance programs relating to future employment; and the average number of months 

deployed to overseas contingencies by grade. 

Review of eligibility of victims of domestic terrorism for 

award of the Purple Heart and the Defense Medal of 

Freedom (sec. 525) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the service secretaries, 

to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives, not later than March 1, 2013, a report on the advisability of modifying the criteria for the award of 

the Purple Heart to military personnel, and the Defense Medal of 

Freedom to civilian personnel, who are killed or wounded in a terVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
106 

rorist attack within the United States that is determined to be inspired by ideological, political, or religious beliefs that give rise to 

terrorism. 

Subtitle D—Military Justice and Legal Matters Generally 

Clarification and enhancement of the role of the Staff Judge 

Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps (sec. 

531) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend sections 806(a) (article 6(a) of 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice), 5041, and 5046(a) of title 10, 

United States Code, to clarify and enhance the role of the Staff 

Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The provision would require that an officer appointed as Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps be appointed in the 

grade of major general and authorize the Staff Judge Advocate to 

supervise the administration of military justice and delivery of 

legal assistance services in the Marine Corps, and provide professional supervision over all Marine Corps judge advocates. 

The committee notes that this provision reflects the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Independent Review 

Panel to Study the Judge Advocate Requirements of the Department of the Navy, dated February 22, 2011. The Independent 

Panel was established, in part, to address concerns about the administration of military justice in the Navy and Marine Corps. The 

committee is grateful for the work of the Independent Panel and 

expects that the clarification and enhancement of the role of the 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant will result in greater accountability at every level for ensuring that the procedural requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice are complied with. 

Additional information in reports on annual surveys of the 

Committee on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 

532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection (c)(2) of section 946 of title 10, United States Code (article 

146 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), to require the Code 

Committee to address the following additional matters in its annual report: compliance with processing time goals; cases in which 

court-martial convictions are reversed as a result of command influence or denial of the right to a speedy review; any provision of 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice that is held unconstitutional; 

developments in appellate case law relating to courts-martial involving allegations of sexual misconduct; issues associated with implementing legislatively directed changes to the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice or the Manual for Courts-Martial; measures implemented to ensure the ability of judge advocates to competently participate as trial and defense counsel in, and preside as military 

judges over, capital cases, national security cases, sexual assault 

cases, and proceedings of military commissions; and the independent views of the Judge Advocates General and the Staff Judge 

Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps on the sufficiency of resources within their service to perform military justice 

functions. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
107 

Subtitle E—Sexual Assault, Hazing, and Related Matters 

Authority to retain or recall to active duty reserve component members who are victims of sexual assault while 

on active duty (sec. 541) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 1209 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize service secretaries, upon the request of the member concerned, to retain on active duty or return to active duty for completion of a line of duty 

determination reserve component members who are alleged victims 

of sexual assault while on active duty. 

Additional elements in comprehensive Department of Defense policy on sexual assault prevention and response 

(sec. 542) 

The committee recommends a provision that reflects the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense and that would require 

the Secretary of Defense to modify the revised comprehensive policy for the Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and 

response program required by section 1602 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2011 (Public Law 

111–183). The provision would direct the following additions to existing policies: (1) a requirement to establish within each military 

department an enhanced capability for the investigation, prosecution, and defense of designated special victim offenses, (2) a requirement that each military department initiate and retain for a 

period prescribed by the Secretary of Defense a record of the disposition of allegations of sexual assault using forms and procedures 

prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, (3) a requirement that all 

commanders and commanding officers receive training on sexual 

assault prevention, response, and policies before, or shortly after, 

assuming command, (4) a requirement that all new members of the 

armed forces receive training during initial entry training on sexual assault prevention and response, (5) a requirement for specified 

military commands and units to conduct periodic climate assessments, (6) a requirement to post and widely disseminate information about resources available to report and respond to sexual assaults, and (7) a requirement to assign responsibility to receive and 

investigate complaints of a violation of or failure to provide the 

rights of a crime victim. 

The committee believes that the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense for changes to the Department’s sexual assault 

prevention and response program can and preferably should be implemented through changes to existing regulations. The complexity 

of the various matters addressed in this provision, including, for 

example, the investigation and adjudication of serious offenses 

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; the collection, retention, and use of sensitive, and in some cases restricted access and 

personal information; and the obligation to establish, enforce, and 

hold military leaders accountable for compliance with training and 

education requirements while operating under wartime conditions, 

demand adequate time and flexibility for the Department and the 

services to develop legally sufficient policies. The Secretary of Defense and service leaders have reiterated their commitment to the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
108 

stated goals of preventing and responding appropriately to sexual 

assaults; this is demonstrated in the information provided in the 

Department’s recent Comprehensive Policy Report Update required 

pursuant to section 1602(a) of the Ike Skelton National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383). This 

provision is fully consistent with the expectation they will fulfill 

that commitment. 

The committee is pleased that the Secretary of Defense has exercised his authority to ensure that initial disposition authority over 

specified sexual offenses is elevated to senior commanders who are 

required to consult with a judge advocate. This action will make 

certain that these serious offenses are addressed by an appropriate 

level of command. The committee looks forward to receiving regular 

briefings on the impact this policy change has on the disposition of 

sexual assault cases. 

Hazing in the armed forces (sec. 543) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

service secretaries, in consultation with their respective service 

chiefs, to submit a report not later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act on hazing in their service. 

The committee believes that preventing and responding to incidents of hazing is a leadership issue and that the service secretaries, assisted by their service chiefs, should be looked to for policies and procedures that will appropriately respond to hazing incidents. 

Subtitle F—Education and Training 

Inclusion of the School of Advanced Military Studies Senior 

Level Course as a senior level service school (sec. 551) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend section 2151(b)(1) of title 10, 

United States Code, to authorize the Senior Level Course of the 

School of Advanced Military Studies of the Army Command and 

General Staff College to offer Joint Professional Military Education 

Phase II instruction and credit. 

Modification of eligibility for associate degree programs 

under the Community College of the Air Force (sec. 552) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend section 9315(b) of title 10, 

United States Code, to authorize enlisted members of the armed 

forces other than the Air Force participating in joint-service medical training and education or serving as instructors in such training and education to participate in associate degree programs of 

the Community College of the Air Force. 

Support of Naval Academy Athletic Programs (sec. 553) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 603 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of the Navy to enter into contracts, cooperative agreements, and 

leases with the Naval Academy Athletic Association (Association) 

for the purpose of supporting the athletic and physical fitness proVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
109 

grams of the Naval Academy. The provision would authorize the 

Association to use Navy property; the Navy to accept funds, supplies, and services from the Association, and funds from the National Collegiate Athletic Association; and the Association to enter 

into certain licensing, marketing, and sponsorship agreements relating to trademarks and service marks identifying the Naval 

Academy. 

Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical accession programs (sec. 554) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2114(b) and 2121(c) of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement that officers serve in the grade of O–1 

throughout their medical education. The provision would authorize 

medical students attending the Uniformed Services University of 

the Health Sciences (USUHS) and students participating in the 

armed forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Programs (HPSP), while on active duty, to serve in pay grade 

O–1, or in pay grade O–2 if they meet specified promotion criteria 

prescribed by the service secretary. The provision would also 

amend section 2004a of title 10, United States Code, to provide 

that an officer detailed as a student at a medical school would 

serve on active duty in the same grade with the same entitlement 

to pay as specified in section 2114(b) of title 10, United States 

Code. 

The Academic Review Subcommittee of the Board of Regents of 

the USUHS issued a report in June 2011, that found that the current policy of requiring medical students at USUHS to serve in the 

grade of second lieutenant or ensign until graduation ‘‘fosters the 

misperception that medical officers are different from their nonmedical peers in matters of officership.’’ This Subcommittee recommended that medical students be promoted to the rank of first 

lieutenant or lieutenant (junior grade) at the end of the second 

year of their training ‘‘if their performance indicates they are ready 

to assume the duties of the higher rank.’’ 

The committee believes that requiring medical students who are 

commissioned officers to remain in the rank of ensign or second 

lieutenant throughout their medical education undermines the goal 

of producing medical officers who are motivated and dedicated to 

a career in the uniformed services and is inconsistent with virtually every other military officer development program. The service secretaries, in consultation with the Surgeons General and the 

President of USUHS, should establish criteria for promotion of 

medical students to the rank of lieutenant (junior grade) and first 

lieutenant and assign greater leadership responsibilities to those 

officers who earn promotions while assigned to USUHS or the 

HPSP. 

Authority for service commitment for Reservists who accept 

fellowships, scholarships, or grants to be performed in 

the Selected Reserve (sec. 555) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend section 2603(b) of title 10, 

United States Code, to authorize members of the Selected Reserve 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
110 

to fulfill a service obligation incurred for acceptance of a fellowship, 

scholarship, or grant by serving on active duty for a period of at 

least three times the length of the period of the education or training, or in the Selected Reserve for a period of at least five times 

the length of the period of the education or training. 

Repeal of requirement for eligibility for in-state tuition of at 

least 50 percent of participants in Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program (sec. 556) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend section 2107(c)(1) of title 10, 

United States Code, to repeal the requirement that at least 50 percent of midshipmen and cadets appointed under section 2107 of 

title 10, United States Code, qualify for and receive in-state tuition 

rates at their respective institutions. This provision would provide 

greater latitude to assign Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps 

participants to institutions with educational programs that meet 

military service needs. 

Modification of requirements on plan to increase the number of units of the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps (sec. 557) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 548 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) to modify the requirement that the Secretary of Defense develop and implement a plan 

to establish and support not less than 3,700 units of the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) not later than September 

20, 2020, to a requirement for not less than 3,000 and not more 

than 3,700 units by September 20, 2020; to authorize service secretaries to determine that all support provided to youth development 

programs in the armed forces is consistent with funding limitations 

and the achievement of the objectives of such programs; and to 

change the annual reporting requirement after 2012 to require reports not later than March 31, 2015, 2018, and 2020. 

The committee recognizes the value of the JROTC program but 

believes that the services require greater flexibility and discretion 

in supporting not only JROTC but also various other youth-oriented programs using appropriated funds. Meritorious programs 

such as National Guard Youth Challenge, Naval Sea Cadets Corps, 

Young Marines, Civil Air Patrol, STARBASE, and others have received substantial amounts of appropriated funds or in-kind support and the services should have great latitude in deciding how 

best to use operations and maintenance funds available to them in 

the current fiscal environment. 

Information received from the Department of Defense in the 

JROTC annual reports for 2009 and 2010 shows that the current 

congressional mandate to establish over 250 new units by 2020 is 

not realistic and should be repealed. In this regard, the committee 

applauds the initiative of the Department of the Navy in establishing the National Defense Cadet Corps, an alternative to 

JROTC, that has identical citizenship goals and can be supported 

by many high schools that cannot meet the requirements for establishing a JROTC unit. All of these units and efforts should be conVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
111 

sidered in assessing the contribution of the Department of Defense 

and the services to youth development. 

Consolidation of military department authority to issue 

arms, tentage, and equipment to educational institutions not maintaining units of the Junior ROTC (sec. 

558) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend chapter 152 of title 10, United 

States Code, to consolidate under one section of law all military department authority to issue arms, tentage, and equipment to educational institutions not maintaining units of the Junior Reserve 

Officers’ Training Corps. This provision would require the educational institution to offer a course in military instruction and to 

have a student body of at least 50 students in a grade above the 

eighth grade. 

Modification of requirement for reports in Federal Register 

on institutions of higher education ineligible for contracts and grants for denial of ROTC or military recruiter access to campus (sec. 559) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend section 983 of title 10, United 

States Code, to delete the requirement for the Secretary of Defense 

to publish in the Federal Register once every 6 months a list of 

each institution of higher education that is ineligible for contracts 

and grants because the Secretary has determined that the institution has a policy or practice that prohibits or prevents the establishment of a Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (SROTC) unit 

or a student at that institution from enrolling in a SROTC unit at 

another institution of higher education. The Secretary would still 

be required to publish a notice in the Federal Register whenever 

the Secretary makes a determination that an institution should be 

denied federal funds because the institution has a policy or practice 

that prohibits or prevents the establishment of a SROTC unit or 

a student at that institution from enrolling in a SROTC unit at another institution of higher education. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (sec. 560) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit to the congressional defense committees not later than 1 year after the date of 

enactment of this Act a report on (1) whether the Reserve Officers’ 

Training Corps (ROTC) programs of the Departments of the Army, 

Navy, and Air Force are effectively meeting current and projected 

requirements for newly commissioned officers in the armed forces, 

and (2) the cost-effectiveness and productivity of current ROTC 

programs. 

The committee believes that the significant proposed reductions 

in active-duty end strength require an objective assessment of the 

Services’ planning for reduced requirements for newly commissioned officers. The United States General Accounting Office completed such an assessment in May 1991, and its report (‘‘Less Need 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
112 

for Officers Provides Opportunity for Significant Savings’’) should 

be used as a model. 

Subtitle G—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military 

Family Readiness Matters 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 571) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for impact aid payments for children with disabilities under section 

8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in section 363 of 

the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), for continuation of Department of 

Defense assistance to local educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with severe disabilities. 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the armed 

forces and Department of Defense civilian employees 

(sec. 572) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$25.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for continuation of the Department of Defense assistance program to local 

educational agencies that are impacted by enrollment of dependent 

children of military members and civilian employees of the Department of Defense. 

Amendments to the impact aid program (sec. 573) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend title 

VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) to: simplify the calculation to determine the 

payment owed to federal property districts; clarify how to calculate 

eligible children displaced from housing located on federal property; 

and accelerate the deadline for the Department of Education to 

make final payments to districts. 

Military spouses (sec. 574) 

The committee recommends a provision that would codify and expand authority for non-competitive hiring in the civilian workforce 

of certain military spouses. 

Modification of authority to allow Department of Defense 

domestic dependent elementary and secondary schools 

to enroll certain students (sec. 575) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2164 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the enrollment in Department of Defense (DOD) elementary and secondary 

schools (DDESS) of dependents who have left a school overseas 

pursuant to an authorized departure or evacuation order, and 

whose safe haven location is within commuting distance of a 

DDESS school. The provision would also authorize the Secretary of 

Defense to allow enrollment of dependents of active-duty service 

members located in the United States that are transitioning from 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
113 

a DOD overseas school to be able to take courses in the Department of Defense Education Activity Virtual School. 

Sense of Congress regarding support for Yellow Ribbon Day 

(sec. 576) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

Sense of Congress in support of Yellow Ribbon Day. 

Subtitle H—Other Matters 

Family briefings concerning accountings for members of the 

armed forces and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as missing (sec. 581) 

The committee recommends a provision requested by the Department of Defense that would amend section 1501 of title 10, United 

States Code, to require the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Affairs to conduct periodic 

briefings for families of missing persons on Department activities 

to account for those persons. 

Enhancement of authority to accept gifts and services (sec. 

582) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2601(i)(2), 1588(a), and chapter 155 of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize the acceptance of voluntary services to facilitate 

accounting for missing persons and to authorize military museums 

and military education programs to enter into cooperative agreements with certain nonprofit entities. 

Service secretaries currently have authority to accept voluntary 

services for military museums and military education programs 

under section 1588 of title 10, United States Code, and to accept 

gifts for the benefit of schools and museums under section 2601 of 

title 10, United States Code. The committee believes that the authority under section 1588 of title 10, United States Code, to accept 

voluntary services from any person includes authority to accept 

services from nonprofit entities and academic institutions. 

Clarification of authorized Fisher House residents at the 

Fisher House for the Families of the Fallen and Meditation Pavilion at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware (sec. 

583) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend subsection (a) of section 2493 

of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that primary next of kin, 

other family members, and escorts of family members of service 

members who die while located or serving overseas are authorized 

users of the Fisher House for the Families of the Fallen and Meditation Pavilion at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. 

Report on accuracy of data in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (sec. 584) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
114 

90 days after the date of enactment of this Act a plan to improve 

the completeness and accuracy of the data contained in the Defense 

Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS). 

The committee is concerned by the findings of the Department of 

Defense (DOD) Inspector General (IG) in its April 2012 report titled, ‘‘Action is Needed to Improve the Completeness and Accuracy 

of DEERS Beneficiary Data.’’ The IG found that the Defense Manpower Data Center, the organization responsible for management 

of DEERS, lacked critical supporting documentation needed to 

verify the eligibility of users of DOD benefits, including health 

care, government facilities, and other privileges. For example, the 

report states that ‘‘DEERS supporting documentation was not adequate to verify the identity of 2.1 million beneficiaries in DEERS.’’ 

The IG found that discrepancies exist in the date of birth, gender, 

name, or relationship of nearly 200,000 beneficiaries. The 

TRICARE Management Activity identified 2,495 instances in which 

ineligible users received health care benefits totaling $11.2 million. 

Accuracy of the DEERS database is essential to ensure that eligible users have timely access to health care and other DOD benefits. 

Accuracy of eligibility data is equally necessary to prevent fraud 

and abuse of critical Department of Defense programs. The committee urges the Secretary to act promptly to address the Inspector 

General’s findings and recommendations. 

Items of Special Interest 

American Bar Association Military Pro Bono Project 

The committee is grateful for the support provided to military 

members by the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Military Pro 

Bono Project. Established in 2008, this initiative of the ABA’s 

Standing Committee on Legal Assistance for Military Personnel 

has provided legal services in civil law matters to over 1,000 service members, many of whom were deployed overseas in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. The Military Pro Bono Project has provided military 

legal assistance attorneys with a centralized referral point for pro 

bono counsel and overseen an efficient complement to existing military legal assistance programs. The Judge Advocates General of 

the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, and the Staff Judge 

Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps have formally 

expressed their thanks and appreciation for the ABA’s role in developing a network of legal support for service members where representation is essential by civilian practitioners. 

The committee believes that the General Counsel of the Department of Defense should lead an effort to identify ways in which the 

Department and the services can expand the support they provide 

to the Military Pro Bono Project in a budget-neutral manner. More 

can and should be done to supplement the ongoing efforts of the 

ABA to consolidate state and local programs aimed at expanding 

the availability of highly qualified civilian attorneys with service 

members who are most in need of pro bono assistance. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study this issue and, in 

coordination with the services, submit a letter report no later than 

March 1, 2013, discussing issues that should be considered and recVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
115 

ommended methods through which additional resources and support can be given to the Military Pro Bono Project. 

Army’s sexual assault and special investigation training 

The committee is aware of the efforts that the Department of Defense has made to reduce sexual assaults across our military services. The committee applauds these steps. However, the committee 

recognizes that more work needs to be done to reduce the occurrence of sexual assaults in the military. The committee is particularly interested in how sexual assault crimes are investigated, prosecuted, and defended. 

The committee notes that the Army has established special investigation courses at the Army’s Military Police School at Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri, that are dedicated to new investigative 

and interviewing techniques, such as Forensic Experiential Trauma 

Interviews. These new techniques can possibly assist in prosecuting 

these often difficult cases. The committee also notes that the Army 

has established a robust career-spanning sexual assault training 

program for Army trial lawyers and military justice practitioners. 

The steps the Army has taken are commendable. 

The committee encourages the Department and the military 

services to adopt the best practices of the Army model and immediately implement any and all lessons learned that are viable to 

the Department as a whole or to a particular service. 

Assessment of skills and abilities to enhance transition from 

military service 

The committee recognizes the value of using varied approaches 

to prepare departing service members for transition from military 

service to the classroom or civilian employment. Members eligible 

for retirement, for example, may need different tools than younger 

veterans who volunteered for service after completing high school 

or after a few semesters of college. For all new veterans, however, 

providing accurate assessments of skills, aptitudes, and interests 

and matching them with educational options or with the requirements of potential employers can assist new veterans in choosing 

successful career options. The committee encourages the Department of Defense, as part of its ongoing effort to improve existing 

transition assistance programs, to identify and develop methods to 

assess the inventory of talents and abilities of departing service 

members to match them with viable career opportunities. Members 

should have available to them, well before separation or retirement, testing vehicles comparable in purpose to the Armed Services 

Vocational Aptitude Battery, to align their interests and abilities 

with the needs of public and private sector employers and appropriate educational pursuits. 

Crime Victims’ Rights Act 

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C 3771) affords victims of 

crimes specific enumerated rights, most of which are afforded by 

Department of Defense Directive 1030.01, April 13, 2004, to victims 

involved in cases tried by military courts-martial. However, this Directive does not include the victim’s rights to be heard during public proceedings and the right to proceedings free from unreasonable 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
116 

delay. In addition, there is no specified procedure for victims to 

seek redress for failure to be afforded these rights. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives not later than January 7, 2013, on the practicability and advisability of extending these additional rights to victims involved in cases tried by courts-martial and a means for 

seeking redress for failure to be afforded their rights. 

Department of Defense Inspector General oversight of investigations of sexual assault 

In June, 2011, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report entitled: MILITARY JUSTICE: Oversight and Better Collaboration Needed for Sexual Assault Investigations and Adjudications (GAO–11–579) in which the GAO recommended that the Department of Defense Inspector General 

(DOD IG) develop and implement a policy that specifies procedures 

for conducting sexual assault investigations and establish clear 

goals, objectives, and performance data for monitoring and evaluating the services’ sexual assault investigations and related training. The committee directs that, not later than December 3, 2012, 

the Secretary of Defense provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the 

DOD IG’s implementation of the GAO’s recommendations, including an implementation timeline. 

Inclusion of synthetic drug compounds in the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice 

The committee recognizes the harmful impact that syntheticdrug abuse poses on good order and discipline in the military. Since 

2008, there has been a rise in reported incidents of military personnel disciplined due to the use, distribution, and possession of 

synthetic-drugs, specifically synthetic cannabinoids, synthetic 

cathinones, and synthetic psychedelic hallucinogens. As such, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 

the Attorney General and specifically the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives on issues that exist in 

prosecuting synthetic drug offenses including the utility and impact 

of listing synthetic-drug compounds as controlled substances in the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice. The report should, at a minimum, assess all compounds that have been found in DEA domestic 

investigations. This report is required no later than 60 days after 

the enactment of this Act. 

Joint Professional Military Education special areas of emphasis 

The committee is aware that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff provides annual guidance to the Joint Professional Military 

Education (JPME) institutions regarding special areas of emphasis 

for curriculum development and teaching that span a broad range 

of topics that are of current and longer-term strategic importance. 

In 2010, the guidance recommended nine topical areas including 

Countering Violent Extremism, Net-Centric Information Sharing, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

Strategic Communication, Psychological Health Awareness, and 

Space as a Contested Environment. However, it is not clear what 

feedback and assessment mechanisms exist to ensure that the 

guidance is being followed and to monitor the quality of the instruction. The committee directs the Chairman to provide to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives no later than 180 days after the enactment of this 

Act an assessment of the JPME institutions’ implementation of the 

Chairman’s annual guidance. 

Recruiting for cyber-related career fields 

The committee believes that every effort must be made to successfully recruit, train, and motivate for military service young people with computer skills to operate and defend the Department of 

Defense’s computer networks and infrastructure. The committee 

believes that innovative measures and incentives should be taken 

to reach out to highly capable young men and women to encourage 

them to volunteer for military service in career fields specializing 

in cyber warfare and defense. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a letter report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives within 180 days of enactment of this 

Act that describes current programs for identifying, recruiting, 

training, and retaining young people with outstanding computer 

skills for military service; reports any human capital or specialty 

shortfalls in cyber defense career fields; and describes bonuses or 

any non-traditional or non-standard recruiting practices that are 

employed by the military services to locate and recruit young people for cyber-related career fields. 

Report on assignment policies concerning women in the 

armed forces and the characterization of certain combat-related service 

The committee notes that in February 2012 the Department of 

Defense released a report to Congress, required by section 535 of 

the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (Public Law 111–383), reviewing the laws and policies restricting the service of female members of the armed forces, and 

provided notice to Congress that the Department would open positions in ground combat units at the battalion level to women in occupational specialties for which they are already qualified to serve, 

and would eliminate the so-called co-location policy. According to 

the report, the changes will result in over 14,000 positions being 

opened to women that were previously denied. The committee believes this is a small step in the right direction, but that more work 

must be done. 

The committee understands that the Department and the services continue to evaluate additional options that would increase 

service opportunities by women, and that the services must report 

to the Secretary of Defense later this year on the viability of these 

options. 

The committee strongly encourages the services to continue these 

efforts. More than 75 percent of the Nation’s youth do not qualify 

for enlistment in the military. Maintaining unnecessary barriers to 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 

service of those who are qualified and motivated to serve magnifies 

the challenge in recruiting the most qualified individuals for service in the All-Volunteer Force. By limiting their use of the talents 

of female service members, the Department and the services are 

handicapping efforts to field the highest quality force possible. 

Finally, the committee remains concerned that assignment policies restricting service by women may continue to result in inaccurate characterizations of their service in combat, denying them 

earned benefits and in some cases needed care and services. According to the Department of Defense, over 284,000 female service 

members have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan in the past decade. 

Of those women, 881 have been wounded and 144 have died. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2013, 

on its implementation of the policy changes announced in the February 2012 report, its assessment and evaluation of additional options to increase service and career opportunities for women, and 

the current practice of the Department and the services in recognizing, recording, and characterizing combat-related service by female service members. The report should make recommendations 

for regulatory and statutory change that the Secretary considers 

appropriate to increase service opportunities for women in the 

armed forces. 

Report on specialized graduate programs 

The committee recognizes the important role the Department of 

Defense specialized graduate programs in engineering, applied 

sciences, and management have in preparing military and civilian 

personnel to perform and manage its technology programs. With 

current and potentially continued budget pressures, the committee 

encourages the Department to thoroughly evaluate the requirement 

for and sufficiency of these graduate programs. At a minimum, this 

review should include the current and projected demand within the 

Department for military and civilian personnel with advanced degrees in engineering, applied sciences, and management; an analysis of the sources by which the Department and the military services’ and civilian personnel obtain such advanced degrees; the need 

for educational institutions under the Department to meet its demands; the costs and benefits of maintaining such educational institutions, including costs relating to directed research; the ability 

of private institutions or distance-learning programs to meet the 

Department’s needs; existing organizational structures, including 

reporting chains within the services to manage the specialized 

graduate programs; and recommendations for improving the ability 

of the Department to identify, mange, and source its specialized 

graduate education needs. 

Requirement for Council of Governors views on legislative 

proposals addressing child custody litigation involving 

members of the armed forces 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to request the 

views and recommendations of the Council of Governors regarding 

legislative proposals to amend title II of the Servicemembers Civil 

Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 521 et seq.) (SCRA), or otherwise to esVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
119 

tablish federal law that would prohibit State courts from considering the absence of a service member by reason of deployment, or 

the possibility of deployment, in determining the best interest of 

the child in cases involving child custody. 

As the Supreme Court noted in Ex parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586 

(1890), over a century ago, ‘‘the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws 

of the states and not to the law of the United States.’’ 

The committee is concerned that the implications of preemptive 

legislation that would extend beyond existing procedural protections in the SCRA and that would create a standard for adjudicating child custody disputes are not warranted either by case law 

or the proactive legislation enacted by more than 40 States. A federal legal standard would preempt the efforts of the States over a 

matter traditionally left to State courts. State Governors should be 

afforded the opportunity to formally express their views prior to 

congressional action being taken. 

In presenting the request for views, the Secretary shall provide 

the Council of Governors with the report required by section 572 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84) on child custody litigation involving service of 

members of the armed forces and current views of interested organizations and associations including the Adjutants General Association of the United States, the National Governors Association, 

and the Uniform Law Commission of the National Conference of 

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, among others. The Secretary shall take necessary steps to ensure that the views and recommendations of the Council of Governors are submitted to the 

Committees on Armed Services and Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 

March 1, 2013. 

Social media and operational security 

The committee recognizes the increasing integration of social 

media into the daily lives of Americans, to include the military 

community. According to a recent survey, more than 90 percent of 

military families use social media with over three-quarters of military families using social media to stay connected to a deployed 

service member. If used judiciously, social media platforms have 

the potential to reap positive benefits. 

Service members who use social media to communicate must 

practice and maintain operational security. This is of particular importance during deployments, as location, mission and other sensitive information must be safeguarded, and not shared via social 

media. 

The committee applauds the Department of Defense (DOD) for 

developing and releasing ‘‘Social Media and the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice’’ and other guidance documents aimed to inform 

and instruct service members, DOD civilians, and military families 

as to the safe use of social media. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to devise enterprise standards of best practice and procedures for: 1) the use of 

social media by DOD employees and contractors; 2) the development of secure DOD applications using social media platforms; 3) 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
120 

the monitoring and enforcement of current DOD rules and regulations; 4) a periodic review and revision of current standards and 

procedures; and 5) the ability to educate and disseminate these 

policies across DOD and the broader military community. 

The Secretary of Defense should deliver a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the development of such standards no later than 180 days 

after the enactment of this Act. 

Special Operations Force Generation 

The committee notes that the previous Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) initiated a Pressure on the 

Force and Families study to examine the effects of high operational 

tempo on special operations personnel and their families and provide recommendations on mitigating the stress caused by repeated 

deployments. According to the current Commander of USSOCOM, 

‘‘the lack of predictability resulting from a demanding operational 

tempo’’ was identified as a primary source of stress on special operations personnel and their families. 

The committee supports the efforts of USSOCOM to develop a 

Special Operations Force Generation (SOFORGEN) system to track 

the operational tempo down to the level of the individual special 

operator and provide for more predictable deployments. The committee also supports USSOCOM’s efforts to more accurately account for training and other events that interrupt time at home for 

special operations personnel. The committee believes addressing 

these issues will improve USSOCOM’s ability to internally manage 

the readiness of its force and reduce the stress on special operations personnel and their families. 

The committee also understands the SOFORGEN system is designed to provide USSOCOM with a tool to better forecast and 

alert the services of enabling capabilities that will be needed from 

the general purpose forces to support the training and deployment 

of special operations personnel. This issue remains of concern to 

the committee, especially in light of current budget constraints and 

the potentially negative impact on the maintenance of such capabilities by the services. The committee reiterates the requirement 

in section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) that the services and USSOCOM 

reach written agreement, not later than 180 days after enactment, 

on the procedures by which the availability of the enabling capabilities of the general purpose forces will be synchronized with the 

training and deployment cycle of special operations forces. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(121) 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances 

Rates of basic allowance for housing for Army National 

Guard and Air National Guard members on full-time National Guard duty (sec. 601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 403(g) of title 37, United States Code, to clarify that the basic 

allowance for housing for members of the Army and Air National 

Guards on full-time duty shall be based on their duty location, and 

may not be modified upon the transition of the member between 

active duty under title 10, United States Code, and full-time National Guard duty under title 32, United States Code, so long as 

the transition occurs without a break in active service. 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus, 

the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus, special pay for 

enlisted members assigned to certain high-priority units, the Ready 

Reserve enlistment bonus for persons without prior service, the 

Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with 

prior service, the Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment 

bonus for persons with prior service, and income replacement for 

reserve component members experiencing extended and frequent 

mobilization for active duty service. 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate accession 

bonus, education loan repayment for certain health professionals 

who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and retention bonuses 

for psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health 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. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
122 

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for 

nuclear officers (sec. 613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending period of active service, the nuclear career accession 

bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities 

(sec. 614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the general 

bonus authority for officers, special bonus and incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special aviation incentive pay and 

bonus authorities for officers, and special bonus and incentive pay 

authorities for officers in health professions. The provision would 

also extend for 1 year the authority to pay hazardous duty pay, assignment or special duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency 

bonus, and retention incentives for members qualified in critical 

military skills or assigned to high priority units. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of 

other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus, 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. 

Increase in amount of officer affiliation bonus for officers in 

the Selected Reserve (sec. 616) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would increase the maximum annual amount 

of the officer affiliation bonus for officers in the Selected Reserve 

from $10,000 to $20,000. 

Increase in maximum amount of incentive bonus for reserve 

component members who convert military occupational 

specialty to ease personnel shortages (sec. 617) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend section 326 of title 37, United 

States Code, to increase the maximum amount of the incentive 

bonus to convert military occupational specialty to ease personnel 

shortages from $2,000 to $4,000 in the case of a member of a reserve component. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
123 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances 

Permanent change of station allowances for members of Selected Reserve units filling a vacancy in another unit 

after being involuntarily separated (sec. 631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 474 and 476 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize the 

payment of travel and transportation allowances for certain members of the Selected Reserve, their dependents, and household effects when the member is involuntarily separated due to force 

structure reductions between October 1, 2012, and December 31, 

2018, and fills a critical vacancy in another unit of the Selected Reserve that is at least 150 miles from the member’s residence. 

Authority for comprehensive program for space-available 

travel on Department of Defense aircraft (sec. 632) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 2641c to title 10, United States Code, that would codify the 

authority of the Secretary of Defense to establish a program to provide transportation to active and reserve component members, retirees, and dependents on Department of Defense (DOD) aircraft on 

a space-available basis beginning January 1, 2014, or such earlier 

date as determined by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to regulation. 

The committee notes that the purpose of no-cost, space-available 

travel on military aircraft is to assist military members and their 

families in responding to emergent personal circumstances and arduous duty conditions and to provide a means of respite from the 

rigors of active duty for military families, of both the active and reserve components. The option to seek space-available travel has 

also been offered, at a lower priority, to military retirees in recognition of their careers of service and to authorized members of the 

Selected Reserve. While the committee supports expanding the eligibility for space-available travel, doing so should not adversely affect the ability of military personnel to travel, for example, on 

emergency leave or on environmental and morale leave from remote duty locations. Expansion must also avoid placing additional 

costs and burdens on the personnel and facilities of the Air Mobility Command and the military services. 

Expansion of the space-available benefit should also be preceded 

by the dissemination of accurate information about the hardships 

aspiring space-available travelers are likely to experience. The Department noted in its December 2007 report to Congress on spaceavailable travel that ‘‘current eligible Space-A travelers often experience disillusionment because of the contrast between the perceived promises of Space-A travel as a benefit of military service 

and the reality of arduous conditions often encountered when using 

the system.’’ The committee believes that the Department should 

do more to educate potential travelers on these realities and implement policies that will continue to ensure safe and acceptable conditions for eligible space-available travelers. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
124 

Subtitle D—Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits 

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 termination of payment of Survivor Benefit Plan annuity (sec. 641) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend sections 1450 and 1452 of title 

10, United States Code, to clarify that military retirees who have 

elected to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and who 

subsequently elect to waive their military retired pay in favor of a 

survivor annuity under the Federal Employees Retirement System, 

do not have to continue paying premiums under SBP. 

Repeal of automatic enrollment in Family Servicemembers’ 

Group Life Insurance for members of the armed forces 

married to other members (sec. 642) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1967 of title 38, United States Code, to remove service members from automatic enrollment as a dependent under the Family 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance program when they are insured on their own behalf under the Servicemembers’ Group Life 

Insurance program. 

Subtitle E—Military Lending Matters 

Enhancement of protections on consumer credit for members of the armed forces and their dependents (sec. 651) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 987 of title 10, United States Code, to require that vehicle title 

loans and payday loans, regardless of duration or whether they are 

open or closed end, are included within the definition of ‘‘consumer 

credit’’ contained in regulations promulgated by the Secretary of 

Defense pursuant to that section. The provision would also require 

the Secretary to develop a policy to address the harmful effects of 

credit offered to service members and their dependents through installment loans through improved financial literacy and a greater 

awareness of more beneficial sources of credit. 

Additional enhancements of protections on consumer credit 

for members of the armed forces and their dependents 

(sec. 652) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 987 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the prohibition against charging out of state military members higher interest 

rates on loans than what is allowed under State law for residents 

of the State applies also to other forms of consumer credit regulated by the Secretary of Defense under the authority provided in 

section 987. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to consult with federal regulators at least once every 2 years 

in carrying out duties under section 987. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
125 

The provision would be effective no later than 1 year from the 

date of enactment of this Act, or such earlier date as determined 

by the Secretary of Defense in regulation. 

Relief in civil actions for violations of protections on consumer credit extended to members of the armed forces 

and their dependents (sec. 653) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 987 of title 10, United States Code, to provide for civil liability 

in United States district court for violations of consumer protections for service members and dependents under that section. 

Modification of definition of dependent for purposes of limitations on terms of consumer credit extended to members of the armed forces and their dependents (sec. 654) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend section 987(i) of title 10, United 

States Code, to conform the definition of dependent under that section with the definition of dependent contained in section 401(a) of 

title 37, United States Code. 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Transitional compensation for dependent children who are 

carried during pregnancy at time of dependent-abuse offense (sec. 661) 

The committee recommends a provision proposed by the Department of Defense that would amend section 1059 of title 10, United 

States Code, to include children who were carried during pregnancy at the time of a dependent abuse offense within the program 

to provide transitional compensation for spouses and dependents of 

service members separated for such offenses. The child would only 

become entitled to benefits after birth. The provision would also 

clarify that spouses and dependents who are not residing with the 

service member at the time of the abuse offense are eligible for the 

compensation. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(127) 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—TRICARE Program 

Extension of TRICARE Standard coverage and TRICARE 

dental program for members of the Selected Reserve 

who are involuntarily separated (sec. 701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1076d(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize coverage 

under TRICARE Standard for up to 180 days for members of the 

Selected Reserve who are involuntarily separated without cause 

under other than adverse conditions. 

The provision would also amend section 1076a(a)(1) of title 10, 

United States Code, to authorize these same involuntarily separated Selected Reserve members coverage under the TRICARE 

dental program for at least 180 days. 

Inclusion of certain over-the-counter drugs in TRICARE 

uniform formulary (sec. 702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1074g of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Department of Defense to place selected over-the-counter drugs on the 

uniform formulary and make such drugs available to eligible beneficiaries. An over-the-counter drug would only be included on the 

uniform formulary if the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee 

finds that the drug is cost-effective and clinically effective. 

The provision would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to 

establish a copayment amount for these drugs, if appropriate. 

Expansion of evaluation of the effectiveness of the 

TRICARE program (sec. 703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 717(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106) to update the reporting requirements of the Department of Defense report, ‘‘Evaluation of the 

TRICARE Program: Access, Cost, and Quality,’’ to reflect the Department’s practice of reporting on access, cost, and quality broadly 

for the military health care system, not solely for retirees as required by current law. The provision would also require the Department to evaluate access, cost, and quality for military dependent children under the age of 21 and for dependents of active-duty 

members with severe disabilities and special needs. 

The committee appreciates the comprehensiveness of the Department’s annual evaluation of the TRICARE program. This provision 

would enhance current reporting requirements to include information on access, quality, and care for young children and beneficiaries with special needs. Beneficiary advocates have informed 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
128 

the committee that special needs benefits under the Department’s 

Extended Health Care Option (ECHO) program can be difficult to 

access. Therefore, the committee directs the Department to assess 

participation in the ECHO program by eligible dependents with 

special needs, and to explore options to provide more flexible benefits under that program without increasing costs to the Department. The Department should consult with ECHO-eligible families 

and work groups created to address children’s health care needs in 

its assessment of the program. The committee expects the Department to submit its report no later than February 1, 2013. 

Subtitle B—Other Health Care Benefits 

Use of Department of Defense funds for abortions in cases 

of rape and incest (sec. 711) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize use 

of Department of Defense funds for abortions in cases of rape or 

incest. 

Availability of certain fertility preservation treatments for 

members of the armed forces on active duty (sec. 712) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide fertility preservation treatments for service members who have been 

diagnosed with a condition for which the recommended course of 

treatment could cause infertility. 

Modification of requirements on mental health assessments 

for members of the armed forces deployed in connection 

with a contingency operation (sec. 713) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1074m(a) of title 10, United States Code, to align mandatory 

person-to-person mental health assessments for certain deployed 

service members with other existing health assessments. The provision would also limit the pre-deployment mental health assessments required under this section to those service members who 

will be subjected or exposed to operational risk factors during deployment in a contingency operation, and for post-deployment assessments to those who were exposed to operational risk factors 

during deployment in a contingency operation. The committee expects that the determination of operational risk by the Secretary of 

Defense shall include any service member at such risk, regardless 

of military occupation, to include support personnel, who may be 

exposed to such risk in support of a contingency operation. 

Subtitle C—Health Care Administration 

Clarification of applicability of certain authority and requirements to subcontractors employed to provide 

health care services to the Department of Defense (sec. 

721) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1089(a) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that subcontractors providing health care under personal services contracts 

are covered for medical malpractice purposes under the Federal 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
129 

Tort Claims Act in the same manner as government employees providing the same services, as requested by the Department of Defense. 

Research program to enhance Department of Defense efforts on mental health in the National Guard and reserves through community partnerships (sec. 722) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out a research program with community partners to enhance Department of Defense efforts in research, 

treatment, education, and outreach on mental health, substance 

use disorders, and traumatic brain injury in National Guard and 

reserve members, their families, and their caregivers. 

Subtitle D—Reports and Other Matters 

Reports on performance data on Warriors in Transition programs (sec. 731) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress not later than 180 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act and every 180 days thereafter until September 30, 2017, data on the longitudinal status of 

service members participating in a Warriors in Transition program. 

The data would document the performance of the Department of 

Defense in addressing the physical health, mental and behavioral 

health, educational and vocational aptitude and capabilities, and 

other appropriate matters, at specified periods during the members’ 

participation in the program. 

Independent entities such as the Department of Defense Inspector General, Government Accountability Office, and the Department of Defense Recovering Warrior Task Force continue to identify problems faced by service members and their families with access to needed medical care, including care for post-traumatic 

stress and traumatic brain injury, lengthy processing times for 

transition to civilian life, inadequate communication among care 

managers, and a confusing plethora of support programs that lack 

specific measures of effectiveness. The committee believes that the 

service secretaries should develop quantifiable and transparent 

performance goals and measures to achieve high quality, fairness 

and comprehensive support of service members who incur wounds, 

illness, or injury in service to our country. 

Report on Department of Defense support of members of the 

armed forces who experience traumatic injury as a result of vaccinations required by the Department (sec. 

732) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the secretaries of the 

military departments, to report on the adequacy and effectiveness 

of the policies, procedures, and systems of the Department of Defense in providing support to service members who experience traumatic injury as a result of a vaccination required by the Department. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
130 

Plan to eliminate gaps and redundancies in programs of the 

Department of Defense on psychological health and 

traumatic brain injury among members of the armed 

forces (sec. 733) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 

a plan to streamline Department of Defense (DOD) programs that 

address psychological health and traumatic brain injury. 

The committee is concerned about the effective management of 

programs and resources provided to the Department for psychological health, including post traumatic stress, and traumatic brain 

injury. In 2011, a technical report prepared for the Office of the 

Secretary by the RAND Corporation, ‘‘Programs Addressing Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury Among U.S. Military 

Servicemembers and Their Families,’’ identified more than 200 Department of Defense sponsored or funded programs to address psychological health and traumatic brain injury, and found ‘‘duplication of effort across programs, both within and across branches of 

service.’’ The report concluded that although the attention given to 

programs to address these conditions is laudable, ‘‘the proliferation 

of programs creates a high risk of a poor investment of DoD resources,’’ as a result of both duplication of effort and unproven approaches. In January 2012, the Government Accountability Office 

published a report (GAO–12–154) citing both a lack of quality control mechanisms and accountability for psychological health and 

traumatic brain injury expenditures within the Department, and 

the ‘‘lack of a single organization devoted to ensuring that accurate 

and timely data are available on DOD’s psychological health and 

traumatic brain injury activities or coordinating these activities.’’ 

The committee recognizes that care for psychological conditions 

and traumatic brain injury will be an enduring requirement for 

years to come, and encourages the Secretary to promptly take action to ensure that service members and their families have access 

to programs of proven quality and effectiveness as they recover 

from illness and injury sustained in service to their country. In addition, the committee urges the Department to continue to make effective use of social media opportunities to improve access to Department resources, including those for psychological health and 

traumatic brain injury. 

Report on implementation of recommendations of the 

Comptroller General of the United States on prevention 

of hearing loss among members of the armed forces (sec. 

734) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the status 

of implementation of the recommendations of the Comptroller General of the United States in the report ‘‘Hearing Loss Prevention: 

Improvements to DOD Hearing Conservation Programs Could Lead 

to Better Outcomes’’ (GAO–11–114, January 2011). 

The committee notes that the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2013 includes $12.6 million to support activities of the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
131 

Hearing Center of Excellence, and is encouraged that the Center’s 

concept of operations reflects a commitment to ‘‘create efficiencies, 

reduce redundancies and reduce costs’’ within existing hearing conservation programs. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to prioritize efforts throughout the Department to enhance 

training, treatment, and research to reduce the incidence of preventable hearing impairments among service members. 

Items of Special Interest 

Comptroller General study on Department of Defense health 

care contracting 

The Department of Defense (DOD) budget for the Unified Medical Program has grown rapidly in recent years. According to the 

President’s budget request for fiscal year 2013, health care represents 10 percent of the overall DOD top-line. In light of this 

growth in costs, it is imperative that DOD identify opportunities 

for savings and efficiencies wherever possible. 

Private sector care contracts employed by DOD to deliver health 

care under its TRICARE program are a potential avenue for identifying savings and efficiencies. In recent years, beneficiaries have 

relied more on the purchased-care system of civilian providers than 

on DOD’s direct-care system of military hospitals and clinics. In its 

2012 ‘‘Report to Congress: Evaluation of the TRICARE Program’’, 

DOD reported that about 65 percent of total inpatient admissions 

and 57 percent of total outpatient visits were in the purchased-care 

system. 

Although TRICARE remains primarily a benefits program, DOD 

utilizes contractors to manage the program, as well as to provide 

pharmacy and dental benefits. DOD also uses other contracts to deliver health care to its beneficiary population, including contracts 

mandated by section 722 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for 1997 (Public Law 104–201) with designated providers under the 

Uniformed Services Family Health Plan. 

TRICARE management contracts are of significant size within 

the Department. Although most of the money flows through to 

TRICARE providers in the form of reimbursements for medical 

services provided to beneficiaries, there is a major contracting component to the program. The third generation of TRICARE management contracts, which was to have been implemented in 2010, has 

yet to be fully implemented in all regions due to bid protests. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a comprehensive review of DOD’s private sector care contracts. At a minimum, the review should assess the following: 

• How requirements are determined and to what extent are 

they consistent within and among the TRICARE regions and 

all categories of beneficiaries; 

• How efficient DOD’s health care contracting procedures 

are, and whether contracting personnel are adequately prepared to contract for health care services of high quality at reasonable cost; 

• Whether the processes for determining requirements and 

entering into contracts are appropriately transparent; 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
132 

• What opportunities exist for savings and efficiencies in 

DOD health care contracting, including but not limited to opportunities for consolidation, streamlined processes, collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs, and increased 

competition; and • The extent to which health care contracting under 

TRICARE is conducted in a manner consistent with proscriptions and principles of DOD’s ‘‘Better Buying Power’’ initiative. 

The committee expects the Comptroller General’s analysis to include an assessment of the planning activities that are currently 

taking place for the fourth generation of TRICARE management 

contracts and make appropriate recommendations for any improvements that should be considered for incorporation into the development of requirements and the solicitation process for these contracts. The committee further expects the Comptroller General to 

engage in dialogue with stakeholders, including contractors, designated providers and beneficiary organizations in the course of assessing DOD health care contracting requirements and procedures. 

Cooperative health care agreements 

Under current law (10 U.S.C. 1073 note), the Secretary of Defense is authorized to enter into cooperative health care agreements between military installations and local and regional nonmilitary health care entities. The committee understands that the 

implementation of this authority is delegable, including certain actions taken by the military departments. 

The committee believes that, should the Secretary of Defense 

choose to delegate this authority to enter into cooperative health 

care agreements with local health care entities, such delegation 

should be exercised with appropriate oversight and coordination in 

order to ensure uniform standards for the continued provision of a 

quality health care benefit across each of the services. 

Health care provider appointment and compensation authorities 

The committee remains concerned about gaps in shortage category and critical need health care occupations in the Department 

of Defense (DOD), and believes that the current and projected increases of nationwide shortfalls in certain health care occupations 

should not preclude the delivery of timely, high-quality care to 

service members, including wounded warriors. Several authorities 

currently exist that the DOD can exercise on its own, or with the 

approval of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to address 

the challenges in maintaining a trained, experienced workforce in 

critically needed health care occupations. These include the authority to appoint and pay for critical health care personnel under 

chapter 74 of title 38, United States Code, as authorized for DOD 

use by section 1599c(a) of title 10, United States Code, and the discretionary use of classification, pay, and hours of work provisions 

under chapter 74 of title 38. It is the committee’s understanding 

that under the delegation agreement with OPM to exercise this authority, DOD may use the Department of Veterans Affairs’ title 38 

authorities to establish special rates to recruit and retain employees in a broad range of health care occupations, as well as approve 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
133 

alternative work schedules and special premium payments for 

nurses and other health care employees, establish qualifications 

and a qualifications-based grade system for nurses and other types 

of health care occupations, and pay nurses locality pay. Utilization 

of this authority is not limited to physicians and dentists. Finally, 

OPM has the authority to establish special pay rates under section 

5305 of title 5, United States Code, if requested by the Department 

of Defense. 

The committee is concerned that authorities which could improve 

hiring and compensation of health care personnel may be exercised 

inadequately or unevenly, possibly creating disparity in access to 

care for wounded, ill, or injured service members or resulting in 

unnecessary turnover of needed health care professionals. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and the Director of 

OPM to consider the use of all existing authorities for critical 

health care personnel shortage fields to the maximum extent necessary to attract and retain high quality providers, thereby ensuring timely access to care and treatment for service members and 

their families and support of the medical readiness goals of DOD. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Director of OPM, to provide a report to the congressional 

defense committees, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, and the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, no later than 120 

days after enactment of this Act that describes the use of these authorities, and to conduct an assessment of additional authorities 

that may be needed. The report shall include a side-by-side comparison of authorities available to and exercised by the Department 

of Veterans Affairs and within the Department of Defense, including each of the military services, for each health care shortage category or critical need occupation. The Secretary of Defense shall 

update the report annually by September 30, until such time that 

the Secretary can certify that no shortage category occupation has 

existed for at least 365 days. 

Medication therapy management 

The committee recognizes that the cost of providing health care 

to service members, retirees, and their families through the 

TRICARE program continues to rise, as does the cost of providing 

health care in the private sector, and believes that initiatives to increase the quality of patient health while reducing the cost of care 

should be explored. An article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (April 29, 2010, Vol. 362 No. 17) indicates that ‘‘as 

many as half of all patients do not adhere faithfully to their prescription-medication regimens,’’ resulting in over $100.0 billion 

each year being spent on avoidable hospitalizations. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense currently provides a broad range of medication therapy management 

(MTM) services through many of its military treatment facilities, 

and that these services may improve patient health and clinical 

outcomes while lowering total health care costs. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of its MTM services, to include a discussion of MTM 

implementation to date, cost savings realized from utilization of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
134 

MTM thus far, plans for future expansion, and an assessment of 

the feasibility and advisability of including this evolving standard 

of care into the broader TRICARE pharmacy program. The committee expects the Department to submit its report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than February 1, 2013. 

Standards for production and performance of prostheses 

and prosthetic sockets for military amputees 

The committee applauds the work of Department of Defense 

medical and technical personnel who, in partnership with industry, 

are providing superior individualized prostheses to military amputees at each Department of Defense location of the Extremity Injury and Amputation Center of Excellence established pursuant to 

section 723 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for 2009 (Public Law 110–417). 

According to a published report in The Journal of Trauma Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, Volume 68, Number 6, June 

2010, ‘‘The number of amputees returning to duty has increased 

significantly, from 2.3% to 16.5%, due to advancements in combat 

casualty care and the establishment of centralized amputee centers.’’ The committee believes that as an increasing number of service members remain on active duty and even deploy with prostheses, it is of vital importance that the Department of Defense 

have uniform standards of production and performance for prostheses and prosthetic sockets. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Department to continue 

clinical and technological research and development for prostheses, 

which are critical to enabling service members who have lost one 

or more limbs in service to our country to achieve their highest 

goals for recovery, rehabilitation, and performance. 

In light of these objectives, the committee directs the Secretary 

of Defense to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 

180 days after the enactment of this Act, outlining: 

(1) The establishment or verification of consistent, acceptable 

standards of quality for the design and fabrication of military 

prostheses and prosthetic sockets; 

(2) The identification of standards for human performance 

using limb loss and limb salvage prostheses and prosthetic 

socket performance based on the individual mobility level, size, 

weight, functional goals, and occupational specialty of members 

of the armed forces; 

(3) The processes in place for the demonstration and validation of prostheses and prosthetic socket manufacturing techniques that reduce weight, reduce cost, and strengthen key 

load-bearing areas of the socket to reduce the risk of failure 

and enhance mobility; and 

(4) An overview of the Department’s efforts to document each 

prosthetic, prosthetic socket, alignment, and associated fabrication settings for all military amputees in their electronic health 

record. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
135 

TRICARE efficiencies 

The committee acknowledges efforts undertaken by the Department of Defense to achieve internal efficiencies, such as decreasing 

administrative overhead, provider payment reform, purchasing 

pharmaceuticals, supplies and equipment at lower prices, and providing incentives for beneficiaries to obtain prescriptions from the 

Department’s mail order pharmaceutical program. These have already resulted in significant savings to the Department. 

The committee notes with concern the Comptroller General report of April 2012, ‘‘Defense Health Care: Applying Key Management Practices Should Help Achieve Efficiencies within the Military Health System,’’ (GAO–12–224) which faulted the Department 

for developing specific plans, goals and accountability for only 1 of 

11 health care initiatives aimed at slowing the growth of health 

care costs. 

The committee acknowledges that the Department’s efforts to 

streamline the military health system governance and consolidate 

common functions, as described in its March 2012 ‘‘Report on the 

Governance of the Military Health System’’, were delayed by section 716 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 (Public Law 112–81) which prohibited the Secretary from reorganizing the military health system until 120 days after the 

Comptroller General of the United States submits a report to Congress evaluating options considered and potential costs or cost savings. However, the committee expects the Secretary to continue to 

work toward increased efficiencies to assure that Department goals 

to reduce health care cost growth are achieved. Elsewhere in this 

report, the committee directs the Comptroller General to undertake 

an assessment of Department health care contracting requirements 

and processes in order to identify additional efficiencies. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(137) 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Provisions Relating to Major Defense 

Acquisition Programs 

Limitation on use of cost-type contracts (sec. 801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Department of Defense (DOD) from using cost-type contracts for 

the production of major defense acquisition programs, unless the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, after consultation with the Director of Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation, certifies to Congress that a cost-type contract 

is needed to provide a required capability in a timely and cost-effective manner. 

Section 818 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) already limits the 

circumstances under which DOD may enter a cost-type contract for 

the development of major defense acquisition programs. However, 

no comparable limitation currently exists for the production of such 

programs. 

The committee takes the position that DOD should select the 

contract type for a production program that is consistent with the 

level of program risk for the program. Consistent with sound acquisition practice, however, very few major defense acquisition programs should be in production unless program risk has already 

been reduced to a manageable level. The committee expects the Department to ensure that the authority to waive this requirement is 

exercised only in exceptional circumstances. 

Acquisition strategies for major subsystems and subassemblies on major defense acquisition programs (sec. 802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that the acquisition strategy for 

each major defense acquisition program (MDAP) provides for robust competition at the subsystem and subassembly level by breaking out major subsystems and subassemblies, where appropriate, 

for separate competition. 

Section 202(c) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 

2009 (Public Law 111–23) requires that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to ensure competition, or the option of competition, at both 

the prime contract level and the subcontract level of MDAPs, but 

does not specifically address the break-out of subsystems and subassemblies. In some cases, the government’s interest in competition 

is likely to be best served if DOD runs its own competition for a 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
138 

subsystem or subassembly and provides it to the prime contractor 

as government-furnished equipment. 

Management structure for developmental test and evaluation (sec. 803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

oversight and supervisory responsibilities of the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation 

(DASD–DT&E) over the chief developmental testers and lead developmental test evaluation organizations of the military departments. 

The DASD–DT&E is responsible for establishing policies and 

guidance for, and monitoring and reviewing the performance of, all 

developmental test components of the Department of Defense 

(DOD). The committee expects the components to adhere to relevant guidance established by the DASD–DT&E and to promptly 

transmit any records or data (including but not limited to quicklook assessments and other internal reports and supporting data 

prepared by the program offices, chief developmental testers, and 

lead developmental test evaluation organizations of the military departments) directly to the DASD–DT&E upon request. 

The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (WSARA) 

(Public Law 111–23) established the position of DASD–DT&E because of a recognition that developmental testing and evaluation 

plays a critical role in identifying and correcting problems in major 

weapon systems early, before they lead to excessive cost overruns 

and schedule delays. For this reason, the committee is troubled 

that DOD does not appear to have given adequate attention to 

shortcomings identified by DASD–DT&E in developmental testing. 

Since the enactment of WSARA, the DASD–DT&E has concluded 

on the basis of assessments of operational test readiness (AOTR) 

that four major weapons programs were not ready to proceed to initial operational testing and evaluation (IOT&E). In each case, the 

program was allowed to proceed to IOT&E despite the findings of 

the AOTR, and in each case, IOT&E identified significant problems 

that could and should have been corrected at an earlier stage of the 

program. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to report to the congressional defense committees on each case in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 

2013 in which a major defense acquisition program proceeds to 

IOT&E despite an AOTR finding that it is not ready to proceed to 

this stage. For each such case, the report should explain why the 

program proceeded to IOT&E despite the findings of the AOTR; 

what aspects of the approved testing and evaluation master plan 

had to be set aside to enable the program to proceed to IOT&E 

under these circumstances; how the program addressed the specific 

areas of concern raised in the AOTR; and whether IOT&E identified any significant shortcomings in the program. The required report should be provided to the congressional defense committees by 

not later than 60 days after the end of fiscal year 2013. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
139 

Assessments of potential termination liability of contracts 

for the development or production of major defense acquisition programs (sec. 804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD–AT&L) to provide the congressional defense committees 

with an assessment of potential termination liability for each contract entered by the Department of Defense (DOD) for the development or production of a major defense acquisition program for 

which the USD–AT&L is the milestone decision authority. 

In recent years, DOD decisions to terminate contracts for the development or production of major defense acquisition programs— 

such as the VH–71 Presidential helicopter replacement program, 

the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, and the Medium Extended Air Defense System program—have raised questions about 

the relative costs and benefits of program termination and program 

completion. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed 

this issue in 2008 and concluded that it cost more to complete programs than to terminate them and that contract termination costs 

were generally not a major factor in DOD decisions to terminate 

weapons programs. 

GAO concluded that program terminations could be a valuable 

tool to ‘‘create trade space’’ in limited budgets and respond to to 

long-term fiscal imbalances and unexpected events. To make the 

most effective use of this tool, GAO stated, decision-makers ‘‘need 

to be able to anticipate and plan for possible terminations and have 

a sound understanding of costs, benefits, and legal requirements.’’ 

For this reason, GAO recommended that DOD review, and as needed amend, guidance on terminations across all the military departments and defense agencies to ensure that the guidance identifies 

the conditions under which it would be appropriate to end programs or contracts, and provides knowledge needed to use terminations as an investment portfolio tool. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to update the 

2008 GAO report with an assessment of: (1) the extent to which 

DOD has implemented the recommendations of the 2008 report; (2) 

the actual costs and savings resulting from the termination of programs reviewed in the 2008 report and the extent to which technologies and facilities from these programs were effectively leveraged or transferred to other programs; and (3) the estimated costs 

and benefits of the termination of the VH–71 and FCS programs. 

Technical change regarding programs experiencing critical 

cost growth due to change in quantity purchased (sec. 

805) 

The committee recommends a provision that would correct a 

paragraph reference in section 2433a of title 10, United States 

Code, as amended by section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), to clarify that 

the Secretary of Defense is not required to conduct continuing reviews of programs that exceed thresholds for critical cost growth 

due only to a change in the quantity of items to be purchased. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
140 

Repeal of requirement to review ongoing programs initiated 

before enactment of Milestone B certification and approval process (sec. 806) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

205(b) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 

(WSARA) (Public Law 111–23), as recommended by the Department of Defense (DOD). Section 205(b) requires the annual review 

of programs initiated before the enactment of the certification requirements in section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, in 

2006, to determine whether or not they meet certification requirements under that section. 

The committee notes that section 819(a) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) repealed section 204(c) of WSARA, which established the requirement for so-called ‘‘catch-up’’ certifications for programs initiated 

prior to the enactment of WSARA. As DOD points out, however, 

the repeal of section 204(c) does not reduce the burden on the Department unless the ‘‘essentially redundant obligation under section 205(b)’’ is also repealed. 

Subtitle B—Acquisition Policy and Management 

One-year extension of temporary limitation on aggregate 

annual amount available for contract services (sec. 821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the goals and objectives established in section 808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 

112–81), including: (1) a cap on spending for contract services at 

the fiscal year 2010 level; (2) a cap on contractor labor rates and 

overhead rates at fiscal year 2010 levels; (3) an approval requirement for contracts and task orders exceeding fiscal year 2010 levels; and (4) a reduction in funding for staff augmentation contracts 

and contracts for functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions. 

The committee is encouraged by measures that the military departments have taken to achieve efficiencies in the area of contract 

services. 

Last year the committee noted that the Air Force, which has 

been more aggressive than the other military departments in implementing required management structures for contract services, 

conducted a disciplined review of $5.6 billion of service contracts 

over the last year and identified $1.4 billion of expected savings 

over an 8-year period. This year, the Air Force informed the committee that it has achieved an additional $3.8 billion in savings 

over the future years defense program in the area of Weapon System Sustainment alone. 

The Army has now established portfolio managers for functional 

categories of services and instituted a management review process 

through which it has identified potential cost savings of $4.6 billion 

in the base budget. 

The committee is also aware that in October 2011, the Naval Sea 

Systems Command (NAVSEA) instituted a Services Requirements 

Review Board—commonly referred to as a ‘‘services court’’ or ‘‘contractor court’’—pursuant to which senior officials of the command 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
141 

have assumed personal responsibility for reviewing all significant 

services contracts in the command to identify opportunities for 

service acquisition efficiencies, process improvements, and cost savings. The process also includes ‘‘tripwires’’ to trigger more in depth 

review of particular contracts. The committee understands that 

this new process has enabled NAVSEA to achieve savings of as 

much as 20 percent on its service contracts in the first year alone 

and that the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition has directed that the process be institutionalized across the Navy. 

The committee concludes that the Navy process is a ‘‘best practice’’ and urges all of the military departments and defense agencies to undertake similar initiatives to achieve greater efficiencies 

in the area of services contracting. 

Prohibition of excessive pass-through contracts and charges 

in the acquisition of services (sec. 822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Department of Defense (DOD) from awarding a contract for the 

performance of services (other than a firm, fixed price contract that 

is either competitively awarded or for commercial services) unless 

the contractor agrees that at least 50 percent of the direct labor on 

the contract will be performed by the contractor or by a subcontractor that is specifically identified in the contract. 

Section 852 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) was intended to address the problem of excessive ‘‘pass-through’’ charges—charges for 

profit and overhead from a contractor who provides little or no 

value added on work performed by a lower-tier contractor or subcontractor. Despite the enactment of this legislation, DOD continues to pay profit and overhead for multiple layers of contractors 

in cases where work is performed by lower-tier contractors and 

subcontractors—in some cases, because prime contractor overhead 

is considered ‘‘value added,’’ in other cases, because prime contractor overhead and profits are built directly into labor rates included in the contract. 

The committee notes that section 15(o) of the Small Business Act 

(15 U.S.C. section 644(o)) already requires that small businesses 

agree to perform at least 50 percent of the work under their DOD 

contracts. The committee concludes that a similar standard applicable to contractors of all sizes would serve to protect DOD from 

paying multiple layers of contractors for profit and overhead on 

work performed by subcontractors. 

Availability of amounts in Defense Acquisition Workforce 

Development Fund for temporary members of workforce 

(sec. 823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1705 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the extent to 

which the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund 

(DAWDF) may be used to support temporary members of the acquisition workforce. Under the amendment, DAWDF funds could be 

used for temporary personnel only for the limited purpose of providing training for such personnel in the performance of acquisiVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
142 

tion-related functions and duties. The provision would also amend 

section 1705 to extend direct hiring authority for the acquisition 

workforce for an additional 2 years. 

The committee notes that senior acquisition officials of the Department of Defense (DOD) have uniformly cited DAWDF as an essential tool to strengthen the acquisition workforce and help the 

Department overcome significant shortcomings in the management 

and oversight of its contracts. The committee continues to believe 

that robust funding of the DAWDF will result in improved DOD acquisition practices and substantial long-term savings. 

At the same time, however, the committee notes that the funding 

levels in section 1705(d)(2)(C) were established in section 832 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84), to reflect the requirements of the hiring plan announced by the Secretary of Defense in 2009, and do not take into 

account the substantial changes in DOD funding and force structure that have taken place since that time. 

The committee notes that the Statement of Managers accompanying H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 

(Public Law 112–74), directed the Secretary of Defense to reassess 

the annual funding floors for the DAWDF and provide recommendations for appropriate funding levels to the congressional 

defense committees within 180 days of enactment. The committee 

endorses this review and concludes that while DOD has a continued need for DAWDF funding, funding levels should be established 

on the basis of a 2012 hiring plan, not a 2009 hiring plan. 

Department of Defense policy on contractor profits (sec. 

824) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to review the profit guidelines for Department 

of Defense (DOD) contracts to ensure an appropriate link between 

contractor profit and contractor performance. 

The committee understands that contractor profit levels play an 

important role in attracting and sustaining investment in the defense industry. In a time of constrained budgets, however, DOD 

cannot afford to pay excessive profits to contractors who perform 

poorly. Rather, the Department must use all available tools—including profit policy—to incentivize the timely and cost-effective delivery of quality products and services by DOD contractors. 

Section 814 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) required the Secretary to ensure that award and incentive fees are linked to acquisition outcomes (defined in terms of program cost, schedule, and 

performance) in DOD acquisition programs. The committee concludes that a similar link is needed between contractor profits and 

contractor performance. 

Modification of authorities on internal controls for procurements on behalf of the Department of Defense by certain 

non-defense agencies (sec. 825) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the requirement for the Department of Defense Inspector General to submit additional follow-up reports on internal controls for procureVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
143 

ments made by the Department of Defense through other federal 

agencies. The Inspector General has indicated that previous reviews have shown a significant decrease in reported problems with 

regard to such procurements. The committee concludes that the Inspector General should have greater flexibility to direct audit resources to areas in which they are most needed. 

Extension of pilot program on management of supply-chain 

risk (sec. 826) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 2 

years the pilot authority for the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

manage supply-chain risk under section 806 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 

111–383). 

The committee is aware that DOD has performed a number of 

exercises to develop effective supply-chain risk management strategies and that lessons learned from these exercises will be incorporated into implementing guidance that is expected to be issued 

this summer. The committee understands the complexity of these 

issues, but is disappointed by the projected 18–month delay in the 

issuance of this guidance. 

The committee urges DOD to issue guidance and begin the implementation of section 806 as soon as possible, so that this authority can be used as intended, to reduce supply-chain risk in the acquisition of sensitive information technology systems that are incorporated into intelligence or cryptologic systems, are used in command and control of military forces, or form an integral part of a 

weapon system. 

Subtitle C—Amendments Relating to General Contracting 

Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations 

Applicability of Truth in Negotiations Act to major systems 

and related subsystems, components, and support services (sec. 841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to request additional contractor 

data, where necessary to evaluate the price reasonableness of commercial items (other than commercially available off-the-shelf items 

and other items that are developed exclusively at private expense) 

that are procured for the support of a major weapon system. 

The Administration requested legislation that would amend the 

definition of commercial items in section 103 of title 41, United 

States Code, to exclude items that are merely ‘‘offered for sale’’ or 

‘‘of a type’’ offered for sale in the commercial marketplace. The 

committee declines to make this change. The Federal Acquisition 

Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) (Public Law 103–355) adopted a 

broad definition of commercial items to ensure that federal agencies would have ready access to products that are available in the 

commercial marketplace—including new products and modified 

products that are just becoming available. Such access remains 

particularly critical in fast moving commercial markets, including 

the markets for information technology and other advanced products. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
144 

At the same time, the committee shares the Administration’s 

concern that some contractors have abused the commercial item 

definition to obscure cost and price information with regard to 

spare parts and components for DOD weapon systems. As DOD has 

pointed out, the Government Accountability Office and the DOD Inspector General have both criticized the Department for using commercial item procedures to procure items that are misclassified as 

commercial items and are not subject to competitive price pressure 

in the commercial marketplace. In 2011, the DOD Inspector General found that non-competitive spare parts provided by two different contractors were significantly overpriced because of inadequate and inaccurate data supplied by the contractors. 

The provision recommended by the committee would provide the 

Department with additional tools to collect needed data for products and services that may arguably qualify as commercial items, 

without undermining the widely accepted definition of commercial 

items. 

Maximum amount of allowable costs of compensation of 

contractor employees (sec. 842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2324(e)(1)(P) of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the limitation on allowable compensation for defense contractor employees 

from the median amount of compensation provided to senior executives in large United States corporations (currently 763,000) to the 

maximum level of compensation for federal employees, which is set 

at the annual salary of the Vice President of the United States 

(currently $230,700). 

Section 808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1998 (Public Law 108–85) limited the amount of contractor 

executive compensation allowable for reimbursement under federal 

contracts to a benchmark based on the median amount of compensation provided to senior executives in large United States corporations, as calculated by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

(OFPP). The OFPP website indicates that the benchmark amount, 

which was set at $432,851 on January 1, 2004, was increased to 

$763,029 on April 22, 2012—an increase of more than 75 percent 

in just 8 years. 

At a time when most Americans are seeing little or no increase 

in their paychecks and budget constraints require the Department 

of Defense to find efficiencies in all areas, the committee concludes 

that increases of this magnitude are unsupportable. The committee 

notes that section 2324(e)(1)(P) authorizes the Secretary of Defense 

to establish narrowly targeted exceptions to the limitation on allowable compensation, where such exceptions are needed to ensure 

that the Department of Defense has continued access to scientists, 

engineers, and others with unique and needed skills and capabilities. 

Department of Defense access to and use of contractor internal audit reports (sec. 843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) access to defense contractor 

internal audit reports and supporting materials for the purpose of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
145 

assessing risk and evaluating the efficacy of contractor internal 

controls and the reliability of associated contractor business systems. Under the provision, a contractor’s refusal to permit access 

to internal audit reports and supporting materials could be taken 

into account in any assessment of the adequacy of contractor business systems pursuant to section 893 of the Ike Skelton National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111– 

383). 

In December 2011, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

reported on a review of DCAA access to and use of defense contractor internal audit reports. GAO reported that generally accepted government auditing standards require evaluation and testing 

of contractor internal controls, including the work of the contractor’s internal audit activity. However, GAO found that DCAA access to internal audits was uneven, and that one contractor refused 

to provide DCAA with any access to such audits at all. The report 

states: 

‘‘DCAA does not generally track its requests or denials 

for internal audit reports. GAO found that the number of 

DCAA requests for internal audit reports is small relative 

to the number of internal audits GAO identified as relevant to defense contract oversight. In explaining why few 

reports are requested, DCAA auditors noted obstacles such 

as not being able to identify internal audits relevant to 

their work and uncertainty as to how useful those reports 

could be. By not routinely obtaining access to relevant 

company internal audits, DCAA auditors are hindered in 

their ability to effectively plan work and meet auditing 

standards for evaluating internal controls.’’ 

GAO recommended that DCAA issue guidance on how and under 

what circumstances company internal audit reports can be 

accessed; establish a central point of contact for each company to 

coordinate issues pertaining to internal audits; and track and assess information regarding access to such audits. 

On March 30, 2012, the Director of DCAA issued the Agency’s 

first annual report to Congress. The report requests that Congress 

clarify DCAA’s access to contractor internal controls and business 

systems to assess whether the systems and controls are adequate 

to ensure the reliability of contractor data. The report states: 

‘‘It is essential for DCAA to have access to contractor reviews, inquiries, investigations, and internal audits in 

order to evaluate contractor business systems. DCAA audits contractor accounting systems before and after contract award to assess whether the systems are adequate 

for accumulating and billing costs that comply with contract requirements. For major contractors, DCAA audits 

contractor business systems as a basis for relying on those 

systems during other DCAA audits.’’ 

Enhancement of whistleblower protections for contractor 

employees (sec. 844) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2409 of title 10, United States Code, to significantly enhance 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
146 

whistleblower protections for contractor employees. The provision 

recommended by the committee would: (1) extend coverage to employees of subcontractors; (2) extend coverage to disclosures that 

are made to management officials of the contractor; (3) extend coverage to abuses of authority that undermine performance of a contract; (4) extend coverage to reprisal actions that are taken in concert with the contracting agency; (5) revise the standard of proof 

to match the standard already applicable in federal employee cases; 

(6) provide that whistleblower rights under the provision may not 

be waived by an arbitration agreement; (7) clarify that contractor 

legal fees are not allowable if the contractor is determined to have 

engaged in a reprisal; and (8) establish statutes of limitation for 

complaints and appeals. 

The committee understands that over a 3-year period from 2009 

through 2011, 163 complaints were filed under section 2409 and 

only 5 of these complaints were investigated by the Department of 

Defense Inspector General. In December 2011, a representative of 

the Inspector General testified that many of these complaints were 

outside the scope of the statute because the alleged wrongdoing 

was reported by subcontractor employees or was reported to company management. The provision recommended by the committee 

would correct these and other shortcomings in the existing law. 

Extension of contractor conflict of interest limitations (sec. 

845) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to determine whether guidance developed pursuant to section 841(a) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) regarding personal conflicts for contractor employees performing acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental 

functions should be extended to contractor personnel engaged in: 

(1) functions other than acquisition functions that are closely associated with inherently governmental functions; (2) personal services contracts; or (3) contracts for staff augmentation services. 

Repeal of sunset for certain protests of task and delivery 

order contracts (sec. 846) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 

sunset date for the authority to file bid protests for task and delivery orders in excess of $5.0 million pursuant to section 2304c(e) of 

title 10, United States Code. 

The committee notes that: (1) the expansion of bid protests to 

task and delivery orders in excess of $5.0 million provides an increased assurance of fairness and regularity in the award of such 

task and delivery orders; (2) the Government Accountability Office 

has not reported an excessive increase in the number of bid protests as a result of this authority; and (3) the potential expiration 

of a previous sunset date for this authority produced significant 

confusion and uncertainty in the acquisition system over the last 

2 years. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
147 

Subtitle D—Provisions Relating to Wartime Contracting 

Responsibility within Department of Defense for contract 

support for overseas contingency operations (sec. 861) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe in regulations the chain of authority and responsibility within the Department of Defense (DOD) 

for policy, planning, and execution of contract support for overseas 

contingency operations (OCO). 

The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (CWC) established pursuant to section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) 

found that DOD lacks ‘‘the organizational structure needed to force 

important lessons learned through the system and the authority to 

enable resource shift to support the acquisition process.’’ The CWC 

recommended the establishment of a new directorate within the 

Joint Staff to specifically focus on contingency contracting. 

The committee recognizes that DOD has made significant improvements over the last 8 years in the way that it has organized 

itself to plan and manage OCO contract support. The provision recommended by the committee would require the Department to institutionalize these changes and ensure that the DOD’s management structure provides clear authority and responsibility for the 

planning of contract support; the establishment and validation of 

contract requirements; the identification of resources and 

prioritization of funding needs; the award and execution of contracts; and the oversight and management of contractors in the 

field. 

Annual reports on contract support for overseas contingency operations involving combat operations (sec. 862) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report on contract support for any overseas contingency operation that includes combat 

operations and for which annual contract obligations exceed $250.0 

million. The committee notes that the reports required by this provision are identical to the reports already provided for contracting 

in Iraq and Afghanistan pursuant to section 863 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as 

amended by section 835 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383). 

Inclusion of contract support in certain requirements for 

Department of Defense planning, joint professional military education, and management structure (sec. 863) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

consideration of issues arising out of contract support for contingency operations in the Department of Defense (DOD) readiness reporting system, the contingency planning functions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the curriculum for joint professional military education, and the DOD structure for the management of contracts for services. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
148 

Risk assessment and mitigation for contractor performance 

of critical functions in support of overseas contingency 

operations (sec. 864) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to perform a comprehensive risk assessment and develop a risk mitigation plan for operational and political risks associated with contractor performance of critical functions in support of a contingency operation that is expected to continue for more than 1 year and require the expenditure of more 

than $250.0 million for contract support. 

The provision defines critical functions to include private security 

functions, training of foreign government personnel, intelligence 

and information operations, and other functions closely associated 

with inherently governmental functions. The assessment and mitigation plan would be required to address risks relating to the goals 

and objectives of the operation, the continuity of the operation, the 

safety of military and civilian personnel, DOD’s managerial control 

over the operation, DOD’s critical organic or core capabilities, and 

DOD’s ability to control costs and minimize waste, fraud, and 

abuse. 

The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (CWC) established pursuant to section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) 

reported that DOD and other federal agencies have too often made 

acquisition decisions that are expedient in the short-term without 

adequate consideration of the long-term risks. The final report of 

the CWC states: 

‘‘Ten years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen the 

United States using too many contractors for too many 

functions with too little forethought and control. . . . 

Events in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that systematic consideration of operational, political, and financial 

risks must be a factor in judging appropriateness. All too 

often, officials assume that any task deemed not inherently governmental is therefore automatically suitable for 

performance by contractors. . . . For functions performed 

in a war zone, prudent decisions on contracting include assessing the level of risk associated with contracting, and 

judging whether that level is or can be mitigated to an acceptable level. . . . If mitigation or control measures leave 

the residual risks of using contractors at a level that outweighs the expected benefits, then the government needs 

timely and deployable options to support the contingency 

mission.’’ 

The provision recommended by the committee would not preclude 

contractors from performing any specific functions. Rather, it would 

require DOD to systematically consider the potential risks associated with contractor performance of particular functions in an area 

of combat operations and take appropriate actions to mitigate or 

avoid such risks. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
149 

Extension and modification of reports on contracting in 

Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 865) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 2 

years the requirement for an annual report on contracting in Iraq 

and Afghanistan pursuant to section 863 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as 

amended by section 835 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383). The provision would also repeal the requirement for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the annual reports. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to report to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the steps that the Department of Defense 

has taken and plans to take to address data and system deficiencies identified in previous GAO reports required by section 863 

and to ensure the accuracy and completeness of contracting data 

available to the Department in current and future contingency operations. 

Extension of temporary authority to acquire products and 

services in countries along a major route of supply to 

Afghanistan (sec. 866) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2014, the authority for the Department of 

Defense (DOD) to acquire products and services on a non-competitive basis in countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan. This authority was requested by DOD to help build partnerships and support in countries along critical supply routes, and to 

help bolster stability in the region. 

Compliance with Berry amendment required for uniform 

components supplied to Afghanistan military or Afghanistan National Police (sec. 867) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to comply with the requirements of the 

Berry amendment, section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, in 

the case of any textile components supplied by the Department to 

the Afghan National Army or the Afghanistan National Police for 

purposes of production of uniforms. 

Sense of the Senate on the contributions of Latvia and other 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization member nations to 

the success of the Northern Distribution Network (sec. 

868) 

The committee recommends a provision that would commend 

Latvia and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member nations along the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) for 

their contributions to ensuring that U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan have reliable lines of supply. The provision would also 

encourage the Department of Defense to make significant efforts to 

procure goods locally from Latvia and other NATO member nations 

along the NDN when quality products at competitive prices are 

available. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
150 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Requirements and limitations for suspension and debarment officials of the Department of Defense (sec. 881) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Suspension and Debarment Officials of the Department of the 

Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air 

Force, and the Defense Logistics Agency to be independent of acquisition officials, to be engaged only in suspension and debarment 

activities and other fraud-remedies activities, to document final decisions, and to develop written policies for the consideration of referrals. 

The provision would also require automatic referral for consideration of suspension or debarment of any person who has been 

charged with a federal criminal offense in connection with a Department of Defense (DOD) contract; been alleged in a criminal or 

civil proceeding brought by the United States to have engaged in 

fraudulent activities in connection with a DOD contract; or is the 

subject of a final determination that the person has failed to pay 

or refund money due or owed to the Federal Government in connection with a DOD contract. 

The committee understands that suspension and debarment generally apply to all divisions and other organizational elements of a 

contractor, unless the suspension or debarment decision is limited 

by its terms to specific divisions, organizational elements, or commodities. The committee further understands that in any case 

where the misconduct on which a suspension or debarment is based 

is systemic in nature, a narrow limitation would be inappropriate. 

Uniform contract writing system requirements for the Department of Defense (sec. 882) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to establish uniform data standards, 

internal control requirements, independent verification and validation requirements, and business process rules for the processing of 

procurement requests, contracts, receipts, and invoices, and to ensure that all DOD contracts are entered through electronic contract 

writing systems that meet those requirements. 

Comptroller General of the United States review of use by 

the Department of Defense of urgent and compelling exception to competition (sec. 883) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the use by the 

Department of Defense (DOD) of the unusual and compelling urgency exception to full and open competition provided in section 

2304(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code. The GAO report would 

be required to determine patterns in the use of the exception, 

whether justifications for the use of the exception meet statutory 

requirements, the extent to which decisions to solicit bids or proposals from only one source have been appropriately documented 

and justified, and whether DOD The has complied with limitations 

on the duration of contracts entered pursuant to the exception. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
151 

Authority to provide fee-for-service inspection and testing 

by Defense Contract Management Agency for certain 

critical equipment in the absence of a procurement contract (sec. 884) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Defense Contract Management Agency to accept reimbursement 

from a manufacturer or assembler for testing and inspection of an 

item when the nature of the item requires such inspection or testing as a precondition to government acceptance of the item under 

a future government contract. The Department of Defense requested this authority to expedite the testing and inspection of 

items that are determined to be critical to defense acquisition programs. 

Disestablishment of Defense Materiel Readiness Board (sec. 

885) 

The committee recommends a provision that would disestablish 

the Defense Materiel Readiness Board created by section 871 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 

Law 110–181), as requested by the Department of Defense. 

Modification of period of wait following notice to Congress 

of intent to contract for leases of certain vessels and vehicles (sec. 886) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2401(h) of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement of notification of Congress and then having to wait for 

30 days of a continuous session of Congress to pass before a vessel 

lease contract may be made. The proposed change would ensure 

that Congress continues to receive a 30–day notice of proposed 

charters, but would eliminate the uncertainty that results from a 

congressional schedule that seldom provides a period of 30 days of 

continuous session. 

Extension of other transaction authority (sec. 887) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 845 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1994 (Public Law 103–160) to extend for 5 years the authority for 

the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program for the acquisition of certain prototypes pursuant to ‘‘other transactions.’’ 

Items of Special Interest 

Competition in the development and procurement of training systems for major ground and airborne vehicle programs 

Section 202(d) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 

2009 (Public Law 111–23) requires the Secretary of Defense to take 

actions to ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with statutory requirements, contracts for the maintenance 

and sustainment of a major weapon system are awarded on a competitive basis that gives full consideration to all potential sources. 

This provision reflects the committee’s view that competition, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
152 

where it is feasible, results in reduced costs and improved contractor performance. 

The committee believes that competition can have a similar beneficial impact in the area of training systems for major ground and 

airborne vehicle programs. The committee is aware that original 

equipment manufacturers may have rights in technical data that 

are essential to the development of effective training systems. However, the same impediment is faced—and has been overcome—in 

the area of maintenance and sustainment of major weapon systems. The committee urges the military departments to actively explore the expanded use of competition as a tool to drive down costs 

and improve performance in the acquisition of training systems for 

major ground and airborne vehicle programs. 

Engagement with independent experts and interested parties in implementation of counterfeit parts legislation 

Section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) requires the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to adopt comprehensive guidance and processes for the detection and avoidance of counterfeit parts. In particular, the provision requires DOD to: (1) revise acquisition rules to ensure that the 

cost of replacement and rework required by the use of suspect 

counterfeit parts is paid for by the contractor responsible; (2) ensure that DOD and its suppliers purchase electronic parts from 

manufacturers and their authorized dealers or from qualified, 

trusted suppliers; (3) require DOD officials and contractors who become aware of counterfeit parts in the supply chain to provide appropriate written notification of the problem; and (4) ensure that 

DOD and its largest contractors establish effective systems and 

procedures to detect and avoid counterfeit parts. 

The committee expects the DOD to implement these requirements quickly and aggressively. At the same time, however, the 

committee is aware of a number of complex issues that must be addressed. For example, which requirements of section 818 apply only 

to ‘‘covered contractors’’—contractors who are subject to the cost accounting standards—and which requirements apply more broadly? 

To what extent should suppliers of commercial, off-the-shelf end 

items be excluded from coverage pursuant to the authority of section 1907 of title 41, United States Code? Should the provision disallowing costs of rework or corrective action that may be required 

to remedy the use or inclusion of counterfeit parts apply to parts 

that are supplied to contractors as government-furnished equipment? 

The committee encourages DOD to solicit the views of both independent experts and interested parties—including representatives 

of original equipment manufacturers, DOD prime contractors, and 

lower-tier contractors in affected industries—as it works to address 

these and other implementation issues. 

Implementation of section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

Section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) requires a written justification and 

approval (J&A) for any sole-source contract awarded by a federal 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
153 

agency in excess of $20.0 million. The Senate report accompanying 

S. 1235 (S. Rept. 112–26) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012 directed the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress with specific data on the implementation of section 

811 by the Department of Defense (DOD). The Senate subsequently 

directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the 

DOD reports and provide its assessment of the effectiveness of the 

implementation of section 811. 

Because of a long delay in the rulemaking process, section 811 

was not fully implemented until more than a year after its enactment. During the period prior to full implementation, federal agencies including DOD continued to award contracts without the required J&As. The most recent reports from DOD and GAO do not 

segregate data on contract awards into awards that were made before, and awards that were made after, full implementation. As a 

result, the data provided the committee on the implementation of 

section 811 remains inconclusive and incomplete. 

For this reason, the committee extends the reporting requirements for both the Secretary of Defense and the Comptroller General for 1 more year, through March 1, 2014. The Secretary’s 2013 

and 2014 reports should provide the Secretary’s assessment of the 

steps taken by the military departments to implement section 811 

and the efficacy of that implementation. 

Inventories and reviews of contracts for services 

Section 2330a of title 10, United States Code, as first enacted in 

section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107), required the Department of Defense (DOD) to establish a data collection system to provide management information with regard to DOD purchases of contract 

services. In 2007, the Senate Committee on Armed Services expressed frustration that this requirement had yet to be fully implemented. The Senate report accompanying S. 1574 (S. Rept. 110–77) 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (FY 

2008 NDAA) stated: ‘‘Five years later, the Department’s expenditures for contract services have nearly doubled, but DOD still has 

not conducted a comprehensive analysis of its spending on these 

services.’’ Section 807 of the FY 2008 NDAA amended and 

strengthened section 2330a, requiring the Department to produce 

an annual inventory of contract services. 

Since the enactment of section 807, DOD has continued to drag 

its feet. Of the three military departments, only the Army has developed an effective inventory system. Section 936 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112– 

81) required DOD to adopt an approach similar to that already developed by the Army. The Statement of Managers on the conference report explained: 

‘‘[T]he inventory, when fully developed in accordance 

with statutory requirements, will provide the Department 

with useful workforce information for identifying inherently governmental functions inappropriately performed 

under contract, informing strategic human capital planning, and facilitating an appropriate mix of military, civilian, and contractor personnel. At the same time, a compliVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
154 

ant inventory will be an important acquisition tool, enabling the Department to better leverage its buying power, 

rationalize its supplier base, foster competitive procurements, and ensure the best value for the taxpayers’ dollar. 

The conferees are disappointed that the Department has 

yet to take the steps needed to achieve full compliance 

with the statutory requirements.’’ 

The Statement of Managers noted that the Department had recently developed a plan to comply with the statutory requirements. 

Unfortunately, this plan has been sidetracked for a number of 

months by DOD’s decision to submit the implementing procedures 

for review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and by 

the refusal of OMB to address the matter as an expedited, ‘‘emergency’’ requirement. As a result, more than 10 years after section 

2330a was first enacted, DOD still lacks an effective database to 

manage the $200.0 billion a year that it spends on contract services. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to report to the congressional defense committees by no later than July 15, 2012, on the status of 

the Department’s efforts to implement section 2330a and the 

timeline for full implementation of the requirements of this provision. 

Joint Urgent Operational Needs and Joint Emergent Operational Needs 

Section 804(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) required the Secretary of Defense to establish an expedited review process to determine whether capabilities proposed as urgent operational needs are 

appropriate for fielding through rapid acquisition processes. The 

provision requires that, subject to exceptions determined to be appropriate by the Secretary, rapid fielding of capabilities in response 

to urgent operational needs is appropriate only for capabilities 

that: (A) can be fielded within 2 years; (B) do not require substantial development effort; (C) are based on technologies that are proven and available; and (D) can appropriately be acquired under fixed 

price contracts. The Senate report accompanying S. 3454 (S. Rept. 

111–201) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 on this provision explains: 

‘‘In some cases, it appears that the military services 

have stretched the boundaries of rapid acquisition authorities to undertake large and complex acquisition programs 

that would be more suitable to the traditional acquisition 

process. . . . In view of the high development risk associated with some of these programs and the fact that a number of them appear to be redundant or duplicative of existing programs, the committee concludes that the Department needs stronger guidance on the proper application of 

rapid acquisition processes.’’ 

The Department of Defense has proposed legislation to repeal the 

requirement that the rapid fielding process be limited to capabilities that can appropriately be acquired under fixed price contracts. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
155 

The proposed change is unnecessary because section 804(b) already 

authorizes the Secretary of Defense to adopt such exceptions to the 

requirement as he determines to be necessary. The change would 

be unwise because capabilities that cannot appropriately be acquired under fixed price contracts are likely to include significant 

development risk that renders them unsuitable for rapid fielding. 

The committee concludes that section 804(b) already provides the 

Department with the flexibility to use other than fixed price contracts, and that this flexibility should be used only in unusual and 

compelling circumstances. 

The committee also notes that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff Instruction 3170.01H, issued January 10, 2012, and the Manual for the Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, issued January 19, 2012, which implement the 

requirements of section 804(b) with regard to Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUON), also establish a new category of requirement, known as Joint Emergent Operational Needs (JEON). Under 

the Instruction and the Manual, both JUONs and JEONs may be 

acquired through rapid fielding processes. Unlike JUONs, however, 

JEONs are not limited to capabilities that can be fielded within 2 

years, do not require extensive development, are based on proven 

technologies, and can be appropriately acquired through fixed price 

contracts. 

The committee acknowledges that it is appropriate for the Department of Defense to establish a ‘‘middle tier’’ of acquisition for 

capabilities that are not suitable for rapid fielding, but need not be 

subject to the full range of requirements applicable to major defense acquisition programs. However, this ‘‘middle tier’’ must be 

more than a process for avoiding the limitations established in section 804(b) and the requirements of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (WSARA) (Public Law 111–23). 

The fundamental premise of WSARA is that acquisition programs must be put on sound footing from the outset through sound 

up-front analysis and cost-performance trade-offs; the establishment of reasonable cost, schedule, and performance expectations; 

an insistence on strong systems engineering; and the use of appropriately mature technologies. In the view of the committee the initiation of a significant acquisition program without such up-front 

work is a formula for cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance deficiencies. 

As presently structured, the JEON process requires a 1-day initial review, followed by a 30-day validation period. After that, the 

Instruction and the Manual appear to make no distinction between 

JUONs and JEONs: both go through the same rapid acquisition 

process, both are authorized to use the same expedited alternatives 

to Analyses of Alternatives, both are permitted to proceed directly 

to procurement ‘‘without the need to develop and validate any of 

the other associated JCIDS [Joint Capabilities Integration Development System] documents’’; and both are assessed for long-term 

operational utility only after they have been fielded. 

The committee notes that while the JUON rapid acquisition process has been established to provide an urgent capability for ongoing 

contingency operations within 2 years that is unconstrained by the 

relatively slow pace of the defense budget process, the DepartVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
156 

ment’s guidance for the JEON process allows for the emerging capability to be fielded within up to 5 years in support of an anticipated contingency operation. The committee questions how the Department will be able to firmly identify an anticipated contingency, 

and how the Department will assess the urgency of the emerging 

capability as a justification for using the JEON process as opposed 

to the traditional budget and acquisition process. 

The committee concludes that additional protections are needed 

to ensure that the JEON process is not abused. Accordingly, the 

committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Vice Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to develop additional guidance for 

JEONs, including: • criteria for assessing the urgency of requirements (including a determination of the likelihood of ‘‘an anticipated or 

pending contingency operation’’); • standards for ensuring that technologies are sufficiently 

mature to be suitable for rapid acquisition; • procedures for ensuring the appropriate consideration of 

alternative solutions; and • processes for ensuring appropriate cost-performance tradeoffs, sound cost estimates, and robust testing and systems engineering. 

In the absence of well-developed protections along these lines, 

the committee is likely to be skeptical of requests to fund JEONs 

on an expedited basis. 

Recommendations by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

on the involvement by the service chiefs in the acquisition of major weapon systems 

In April 2012, the Defense Business Board (DBB) recommended 

that the chiefs of the military services should be more engaged and 

accountable in the acquisition process. The DBB stated that just as 

input by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics ‘‘is critical in the requirements process in 

order to ensure that affordability and technological capability are 

considered,’’ service chief involvement ‘‘is critical in the acquisition 

process in order to ensure that military needs are met.’’ For this 

reason, the DBB indicated that ‘‘DOD needs to create a partnership 

across budget, requirements, and acquisition leaders to create a 

linked and streamlined’’ acquisition process. 

The committee agrees that the engagement of the service chiefs 

in the overall process by which DOD acquires major weapon systems is important to ensuring that the process is responsive to the 

needs of the military. For example, the cost, schedule, and performance trade-offs required by the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (WSARA) (Public Law 111–23) would be impossible without continuous engagement between senior military leaders and the acquisition community. Similarly, the Configuration 

Steering Boards established in accordance with the requirements of 

section 814 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) to control costs and 

requirements on major defense acquisition programs could not be 

effective without the engagement of senior military leaders. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
157 

For these reasons, section 2547 of title 10, United States Code, 

enacted by section 861 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383), established 

a permanent role for the chiefs of the armed forces in the acquisition process; section 908 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for 2008 (Public Law 110–181) required each of the military departments to appoint a three-star military deputy to the department’s 

service acquisition executive; and section 105 of the WSARA required that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council seek and 

consider input from the commanders of the combatant commands 

in identifying joint military requirements. 

Because of the continuing importance of this issue, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives, no later than 180 days after enactment of this 

Act, any recommendations he may have to ensure the full engagement of the service chiefs in the acquisition of major weapon systems, consistent with the objectives stated in this provision. 

Reverse auctions 

The committee is aware that the military departments have increasingly used online reverse auctions for the procurement of commodities and simple services. When used appropriately, this approach has been effective in lowering the cost of such commodities 

and services by stimulating aggressive competition between vendors. It has also proved beneficial to small businesses, which receive a large majority of the purchases. 

The committee encourages the military departments to expand 

their use of reverse auctions for appropriate types of commodities 

and simple services, whenever doing so would be expected to result 

in savings. 

Strategic sourcing and spend analyses 

For more than a decade, the committee has been urging the Department of Defense (DOD) to do a better job of managing its contracts for services. The Senate report accompanying S. 1438 (S. 

Rept. 107–62) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2002 stated: 

‘‘[T]he Department has never conducted a comprehensive 

spending analysis of its services contracts and has made 

little effort to leverage its buying power, improve the performance of its services contractors, rationalize its supplier 

base, or otherwise ensure that its dollars are well 

spent. . . . The GAO has informed the committee that a 

number of companies in the private sector have achieved 

significant savings without any reduction in services by instituting best practices such as centralizing key functions, 

promoting strategic orientation, improving personnel skills 

and capabilities, conducting spending analyses, 

rationalizing supplier bases, and expanding the use of 

cross-functional, commodity-based teams.’’ 

In May 2003, DOD established a Department-wide Strategic 

Sourcing Program in an effort to leverage the Department’s purVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
158 

chasing power and rationalize its spending for both services and 

commodities. In 2005, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy followed with a government-wide strategic sourcing initiative. Over 

the last 5 years, the military departments have continued to perform spending analyses and develop strategic sourcing initiatives 

for specific service and commodity portfolios with positive results. 

Nonetheless, more remains to be done. In January 2011, a task 

force of the Defense Science Board found that DOD could save billions of dollars if it incorporates ‘‘more robust strategic sourcing 

best practices’’ into its operations and business models. Similarly, 

in March 2011, the Government Accountability Office reported that 

the Federal Government could save billions of dollars by applying 

strategic sourcing best practices on a broader basis. The committee 

believes that there are additional commodity areas in which DOD 

could achieve significant savings by rationalizing its supplier base 

and better leveraging its buying power. The committee urges the 

Department to take advantage of these opportunities. 

Treatment of procurements on behalf of the Department of 

Defense in accordance with the interagency agreement 

between the Department of Defense and the Department 

of Energy 

The Department of Energy (DOE) has expressed the view that 

section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) requires DOE to comply with ‘‘defense procurement requirements’’ and that this requirement ‘‘has 

the potential to hinder critical national security activities supported by the DOE.’’ For this reason, DOE has requested an exemption from section 801. 

DOE’s interpretation of section 801 is incorrect. Section 801, as 

amended by section 817 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), requires DOE and other 

federal agencies that make purchases on behalf of the Department 

of Defense (DOD) to comply with: (1) the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); and (2) laws and regulations that apply to DOD procurements through other federal agencies. The committee notes 

that in September 2010, DOD and DOE entered a Memorandum of 

Agreement (2010 MOA) establishing the regulatory framework for 

DOD work undertaken under the DOE ‘‘Work for Others’’ (WFO) 

program. These requirements were further elaborated in a September 2011 Memorandum issued by the Director of Defense Procurement Policy (2011 Memorandum). 

For this reason, DOD procurements through the WFO program 

that are conducted in accordance with the FAR, the 2010 MOA, 

and the 2011 Memorandum are also in compliance with the requirements of section 801, as amended. The committee concludes 

that DOD and DOE can and should comply with the requirements 

of section 801, and that no waiver or exemption should be necessary for this purpose. The committee expects the Inspectors General of DOD and DOE to continue to audit DOD procurements 

through DOE for compliance with the requirements of the FAR, the 

2010 MOA, and the 2011 Memorandum, as required by section 801. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(159) 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management 

Definition and report on terms ‘‘preparation of the environment’’ and ‘‘operational preparation of the environment’’ 

for joint doctrine purposes (sec. 901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to formally define the terms ‘‘preparation of 

the environment (PE)’’ and ‘‘operational preparation of the environment (OPE)’’ for the purposes of Joint Doctrine and provide the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report, including: the definitions of PE and OPE, examples of PE and OPE activities highlighting application of the 

concepts and drawing distinctions between the two types of activities, and an assessment of the respective roles of special operations 

and general purpose forces in conducting PE and OPE activities. 

The committee is concerned that, despite their frequent use, the 

terms PE and OPE are not accurately or clearly understood, and 

are often used interchangeably to describe various activities by special operations and general purpose forces. 

The term PE is currently defined in Joint Doctrine (Joint Publication 1–02) as ‘‘an umbrella term for operations and activities conducted by selectively trained special operations forces to develop an 

environment for potential future special operations.’’ The committee notes that this definition is inadequate and misleading because, in practice, PE activities are not restricted to special operations forces or operations and are carried out by and in support 

of general purpose forces. 

The committee also notes that the term OPE is not currently defined in Joint Doctrine, despite the term appearing in various department publications, directives, and orders. The committee believes the inadequate definition of these terms has resulted in confusion within the military, friction in the interagency coordination 

process, and reduced congressional oversight. 

Expansion of duties and responsibilities of the Nuclear 

Weapons Council (sec. 902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

statute authorizing the Nuclear Weapons Council (10 U.S.C. 179) 

to require that concurrent with the President’s budget submission, 

that the Council certify in writing that the budget for the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) meets both the nuclear 

stockpile and the stockpile stewardship requirements. Dissenting 

opinions shall be provided with the written certification. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
160 

The provision also requires the Council to notify the congressional defense committees on the impacts of any authorization or 

appropriation bill adopted by either the Senate or the House of 

Representatives that in the view of the Council fails to adequately 

fund the nuclear stockpile and nuclear stockpile stewardship requirements. 

Subtitle B—Space Activities 

Operationally Responsive Space Program Office (sec. 911) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2273a of title 10, United States Code, authorizing the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. This provision would 

require the ORS Program Office to report to the Air Force’s Director of Space and Missile Systems Center and that the Office be geographically separate from the Headquarters of the Center, similar 

to what General Schriever required for the Space Test Program in 

1965. The provision gives acquisition authority to the Program Element Office for Space. The provision would require an Executive 

Committee made up of the Commander of the Air Force Space 

Command, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, 

and the Executive Agent for Space, which would chair the board. 

The committee directs, no later than 60 days after enactment of 

this Act, a copy of the terms of reference of the Executive Committee. The committee grants authority to transfer up to $60.0 million from the Weather Follow On Satellite Program, to the extent 

provided in appropriations acts to other higher priority programs, 

including having the ORS Office produce a low cost follow on satellite. If funding is transferred for a low cost weather satellite, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to report to Congress no later than December 31, 2012, on the total cost and launch 

date for the satellite. The committee expects a similar ORS–1 type 

payload, low cost, technologically simple, and launched within 3 

years. 

For fiscal year 2013, the Department of Defense proposed to 

eliminate the ORS Program Office. The Department proposes to 

transition the Program’s success and knowledge into the other satellite acquisition programs. The committee finds the Department’s 

rationale, to cancel a program because it is successful—curious. 

The committee rejects the proposed termination. The purpose of the 

Office is to lower the cost and time to launch tactically responsive 

satellites. Such satellites do not need perfection, they need to be responsive, the satellite ORS–1 met the challenge. It is an imaging 

satellite designed, built, and launched on the order of $225.0 million in less than 32 months. The satellite is tasked directly by U.S. 

Central Command (CENTCOM), which the committee understands 

is pleased with the satellite’s performance. 

U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) on February 28, 2012, responded to a question from the Senate Committee on Armed Services regarding the utility of ORS–1 and said: ‘‘Based on 

CENTCOM’s success with that system, we’ve had recent discussions with the Operational Responsive Space Program on developing an ORS–1 system for PACOM as well. These systems will be 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
161 

particularly useful in enhancing PACOM’s ability to collect in denied areas that we cannot reach with airborne systems.’’ In response to another question about the ORS ability to field this class 

of satellites to increase the resiliency and responsiveness of 

PACOM’s space capabilities, PACOM’s response was: ‘‘The future 

potential for rapid reconstitution of overhead systems in the face 

of adversary counter-space capabilities is very important to increasing the resiliency and responsiveness of PACOM’s space capabilities. PACOM is a strong proponent of ORS-class satellites.’’ 

When the venture capital community is investigating launching 

modified cell phones into space for a reconfigurable, low cost communications constellation, there is much to be learned from the 

ORS Program and much more that it can impart into the Department of Defense to lower the cost, where practicable, of access to 

space. 

Commercial space launch cooperation (sec. 912) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for a 

private entity using DOD launch ranges and facilities to contribute 

to their maintenance. 

Reports on integration of acquisition and capability delivery schedules for components for major satellite acquisition programs and funding for such programs (sec. 913) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to track concurrently the development of both the satellite and 

ground systems and to report to Congress corrective measures that 

will be taken when the satellite and ground systems are more than 

1 year apart in synchronization. 

The committee has found that the Department of Defense is 

bringing a number of large satellite systems into operation without 

having the ground systems to use it. Examples of systems in this 

category are the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite, the 

Space Based Infrared System, the Mobile User Objective System, 

and the GPS III. Department of Defense representation in dispute 

resolution regarding surrender of Department of Defense bands of 

electromagnetic frequencies (sec. 914) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1062(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65, 47 U.S.C. 921 note) to require that 

the Department of Defense be adequately represented to convey its 

views. 

Subtitle C—Intelligence-Related and Cyber Matters 

Authority to provide geospatial intelligence support to security alliances and international and regional organizations (sec. 921) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency to provide 

imagery intelligence and geospatial information support to security 

alliances and international organizations of which the United 

States is a member, and to regional organizations with defense or 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
162 

security components. This provision was requested by the administration. 

Army Distributed Common Ground System (sec. 922) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of the Army to assign oversight of the DCGS-Army cloud 

acquisition effort to the Army’s Chief Information Officer (CIO)/G– 

6. The provision would require the CIO to conduct an audit of the 

program and provide an assessment and recommendations to the 

Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff of the Army by December 

1, 2012. 

In mid-2010, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence for U.S. 

Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR–A), signed a Joint Urgent Operational 

Needs Statement (JUONS) requesting the rapid fielding to all echelons in Afghanistan of a commercially available analyst toolkit, 

which he had evaluated, that he believed would dramatically improve intelligence analysis in theater. 

The Army at the time was accelerating the development, with 

the National Security Agency, of a cloud-computing system for the 

Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) that the Army G–2 

believed would transform intelligence analysis capabilities. Up to 

this point, the Army had been seriously considering integrating the 

commercial toolset requested in the USFOR–A JUONS with the 

DCGS cloud system. The thought was that, while the Army cloud 

was rapidly maturing the ability to ingest, correlate, store, and distribute vast amounts of disparate data, the effort to produce new 

types of analyst tools for data query, manipulation, and display 

was lagging. Commercial analyst tools, in contrast, provided rich 

analyst support, but were perceived to lack the large-scale data 

handling ability of cloud architectures. 

Ultimately, however, the Army decided not to support the 

USFOR–A JUONS by acquiring the requested commercial toolset, 

despite its ability to complement the Army cloud program. Instead, 

the Army asserted that its own analyst tool development program 

would be ready as fast as the proposed commercial product deployment, and would provide equal capabilities. This decision generated 

much controversy within the Department of Defense, and concern 

in Congress, but the Army was given the opportunity to prove that 

it could deliver the promised capabilities. In the 2 years that have 

ensued, the Army periodically re-examined the option of integrating multiple commercial front-end analyst tools (such as Analyst Notebook, Palantir, Centrifuge, Semantica, etc.) into its cloud 

architecture, but has always elected to stick with its internal development. 

Meanwhile, the Marine Corps and even some Army units in Afghanistan proceeded to deploy commercial products. Overall, the 

feedback from these units and an independent assessment by the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense-chartered National Assessment Group 

has been very positive on these commercial products. Unfortunately, the Army cloud’s analyst support appears to continue to lag 

behind promised performance. In testimony to Congress in late 

2011, the Army indicated that only 115 analysts in Afghanistan are 

using the Army’s DCGS cloud analyst tools, despite years of development and considerable expense. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
163 

The committee lacks confidence that the three groups trying to 

jointly manage the Army’s DCGS modernization—the G–2’s office, 

the Intelligence and Security Command, and the Intelligence and 

Information Warfare Directorate of the Communications-Electronics Research and Development Center—are going to deliver a 

fully capable, end-to-end system to support the warfighter on an 

acceptable schedule and cost. 

Rationalization of cyber networks and cyber personnel of 

the Department of Defense (sec. 923) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require network consolidation and re-design to free up personnel to achieve an 

appropriate balance between U.S. Cyber Command’s mission capabilities. In the event that the rate at which personnel freed up from 

network consolidation is insufficient, or if the personnel available 

are not able to meet the requirements for supporting Cyber Command’s offensive missions, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to take appropriate action to provide qualified 

personnel in the required timeframe. 

General Alexander, the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command, in 

speeches, testimony to the committee, and within the Department 

of Defense (DOD) has declared that DOD networks are not defensible due to the proliferation of sub-networks, each with its own security barriers, which prevents visibility and control by commanders. Although the committee cannot substantiate the claim 

that there are ‘‘15,000’’ such sub-networks, there is no dispute that 

there are far too many such enclaves with features that today 

hinder rather than promote information security. 

General Alexander’s testimony also confirmed that the personnel 

assigned to Cyber Command and its components are overwhelmingly allocated to network management and defense. A small percentage of the workforce attends to the Command’s offensive missions and responsibilities. General Alexander confirmed that this 

ratio reflects an imbalance in capabilities and must be rectified. 

General Alexander and others in DOD agree that both issues 

could be at least partially rectified by dramatically reducing the 

number of separate network enclaves in the Department, which 

should yield significant manpower savings, and re-train and re-assign that manpower to supporting offensive missions. 

In the past, DOD sought to secure information and regulate access to information by controlling access to the network itself. DOD 

rules encouraged or even required organizations to erect access and 

security barriers as a condition for connecting to the backbone network. The result is a proliferation of ‘‘virtual private networks’’ 

with firewalls and intrusion detection systems, and administrators 

and analysts to manage and protect them. Desktops and servers 

behind those barriers are hidden from view and from management. 

In addition to hampering the work of Cyber Command, this network balkanization makes it hard to share information, to collaborate, and to access common enterprise services. 

Network rationalization and the use of identity- and attributebased access controls should enable improved performance, better 

security, and more efficient use of personnel. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
164 

Next-generation host-based cyber security system for the 

Department of Defense (sec. 924) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense (DOD) Chief Information Officer and the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to develop a strategy to acquire next-generation host-based cybersecurity tools and capabilities, and provide that strategy to Congress in conjunction with the budget request for fiscal year 2015. 

The DOD is now completing deployment of the Host Based Security System (HBSS) that provides cybersecurity capabilities for millions of endpoint or host computing devices across the Department. 

This deployment took a long time, cost significantly more than expected, and proved to be a complicated and very difficult undertaking. 

This experience has instilled a ‘‘never again’’ attitude among 

DOD’s cybersecurity leadership regarding enterprise-scale endpoint 

security solutions. Instead, DOD appears to be hoping that network-level security enhancements will not only overcome the weaknesses in the current HBSS, but enable the Department to meet future cybersecurity threats. The Commander of U.S. Cyber Command has also publicly characterized endpoint security for today’s 

‘‘thick-client’’ desktop, laptop, and mobile device computers as an 

exercise in futility on the grounds that it is impossible to coherently manage, monitor, and update millions of such devices distributed across the globe. In addition, the Commander of U.S. Cyber 

Command points out that the Command currently does not even 

have visibility or the ability to directly control those endpoints because (as noted elsewhere in this report) they are typically ‘‘hidden’’ behind enclave firewalls and other security devices. The Commander argues publicly that ‘‘endpoint security’’ will be viable only 

in a cloud environment where endpoint computing is virtualized 

and provisioning and control are centralized and fully automated. 

The HBSS system itself is fundamentally based on anti-virus 

technology, which works only when the signature of an attack is already known. This requires that HBSS-protected computers store 

a large and ever-growing file of malware signatures. The communications load necessary to keep HBSS up-to-date in the field in 

some circumstances forces commanders with low communications 

capacity to choose between operating HBSS and performing their 

tactical missions, which results in HBSS being turned off. 

The committee is concerned that these views are short-sighted 

from multiple perspectives. Constant, rapid malware morphing is a 

reality, and the growing use of encryption (for example, the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure), suggest that endpoint security solutions will remain essential. Further, industry is now rapidly developing and marketing endpoint security solutions that do not rely 

on signatures and potentially could vastly reduce the ‘‘overhead’’ 

associated with HBSS. Some of these technologies enable ‘‘discovery’’ of previously unseen cyber threats at the endpoint, which 

could transform host computers into a much improved sensor grid 

for the enterprise. 

Moreover, as noted elsewhere in this report, DOD must soon rationalize its networks to reduce the number of segmented enclaves, 

which should extend visibility and easier provisioning and control 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
165 

to endpoints. Finally, although the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command is promoting a fast transition to a cloud-hosting environment, it may take a long time to replace millions and millions of 

desktops, laptops, mobile devices, and other distributed computers 

with thin-client devices served exclusively from the cloud. 

This provision would require the strategy to address the limitations of the current HBSS system, and to include exploitation of 

emerging technologies for behavior-based threat detection, insider 

threat detection, data loss prevention, dynamic encryption of dataat-rest, remediation following infections, and continuous monitoring 

and configuration management. The provision encourages building 

on the integration framework featured in HBSS to enable ‘‘plugand-play’’ of tools into an open architecture. This capability would 

permit constant insertion of new, competitively developed tools, as 

well as tailored or non-standard deployments. 

Improvements of security, quality, and competition in computer software procured by the Department of Defense 

(sec. 925) 

The committee recommends a provision that would mandate 

multiple actions to improve the security and quality of computer 

software code, and enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to compete software maintenance and upgrades. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) suffers from constant cyber 

attacks. A significant route for intruders is through vulnerabilities 

in the software that DOD paid contractors to develop, which often 

includes integration of custom software code with commercial software packages. 

Cybersecurity in important respects begins with secure software. 

DOD’s software is riddled with common and easily preventable 

vulnerabilities. DOD spends enormous resources then trying to protect that code from being exploited, discovering when it is compromised, and dealing with the consequences of infections. If the 

code was written properly in the first place, defending DOD information systems would be much easier. 

DOD needs to insist that the code it pays for be secure, and to 

implement concrete methods and means to achieve that objective. 

One method for improving code security is to use automated test 

tools to identify vulnerabilities and to remediate them in development. Most current software code vulnerability testing tools work 

only on source code. To ensure maximum access to source code for 

quality and security analysis, DOD needs to exercise its legal 

rights to technical data. 

The government has other strong interests in exercising these 

data rights, including software re-use and competition for system 

maintenance, upgrade, and capability insertion. DOD has demonstrated dramatic savings by forcing open complex software-based 

systems to competition. But achieving success is difficult, and software re-use historically has not been very successful. The committee believes that modern approaches to software repositories, 

open architecture design, advanced tools for analyzing and understanding software code, improved software development standards 

and processes, and collaborative software development environVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
166 

ments have the potential to significantly improve cybersecurity and 

increase competition. 

This provision would require the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), in coordination with the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to sponsor a major 

update and improvement to capability maturity models for development and acquisition. The goal of this effort would be to sharpen 

the best practices for software development and to provide significantly better means to measure whether organizations are actually 

implementing the processes and practices at the level expected for 

the maturity level at which they have been assessed. 

The provision also would require USD(AT&L) and the CIO to solidify requirements for secure software development practices and 

standards. Chief among these is the need to require, rather than 

just ‘‘highly recommend,’’ the use of static software analysis tools 

in the development process, and in evaluating the code in development and operational tests. These tools are widely available commercially, but are rarely used even though they have proven capabilities to detect a large percentage of the most commonly exploited 

vulnerabilities. It is true that these tools generate a large number 

of false positives in order to achieve the lowest possible rate of false 

negatives. But high false positive rates are not a significant problem in the development stage, when the developer can build and 

test incrementally. U.S. Transportation Command and the Military 

Health Service already have successful experience with this approach. 

The Defense Information Systems Agency’s (DISA’s) Security 

Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) requires the use of coding 

standards, but not specifically including secure coding standards, 

and the references listed in the STIG are best characterized as 

style guides rather than coding standards. This provision would require that the STIG be modified accordingly, and that appropriate 

guidance be developed for requiring the use of secure software coding plans in statements of work. 

This provision would require the USD(AT&L) and the CIO to develop appropriate guidance for program managers to require evidence that software developers are actually conforming to secure 

coding standards, best-practice development models, and vulnerability testing requirements, and, in so doing, make appropriate 

use of software code assessment centers that already exist or could 

be created in government organizations, federally funded research 

and development centers (FFRDC), and contractor facilities. 

This provision would require investigation of additional means to 

incentivize the development of secure, high-quality software 

through the imposition of liabilities, warranties, and liability protections. The committee is aware of commercial software companies 

that are now offering defect-free warranties for software code bases 

up to 600,000 lines of code. The professional judgment of the Software Engineering Institute, a FFRDC funded by DOD, is that writing high-quality, secure code should not cost any more than the 

vulnerable code the government is buying today. It simply requires 

competence and diligence. 

Finally, the provision would require DOD to designate software 

repositories and collaborative software development environments, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
167 

such as those existing today in DISA’s Forge.mil and at U.S. Transportation Command. The objective is to expand the use of such facilities to store code that the government owns or to which it has 

use rights; to enable program offices to use common development 

infrastructure instead of buying new equipment for every new program; to foster collaboration and the use of proven software development practices; and to enable program managers and prospective 

bidders to discover code for re-use, to assess its quality and security, or to research code characteristics and functionality to compete on upgrades, capability insertions, and maintenance. 

The committee considers it critically important for DOD to provide these repositories’ users with access to advanced software reverse engineering and analysis tools and to static and dynamic vulnerability testing capabilities that work both on source code and 

code binaries. As noted previously, there are many capable commercial tools available for source code analysis. Industry is working 

on binary code analysis tools, but these are not yet mature or comprehensive in functionality. NSA has devoted much effort to software reverse engineering capabilities to support its signals intelligence mission that run the gamut from source code to machine 

code, and from functionality analysis to vulnerability detection. Depending on maturity, scalability, and ease of use, these National 

Security Agency (NSA) tools could be extremely useful to the DOD 

acquisition community to improve not only software security, but 

also software re-use and competition by enabling program managers and prospective bidders to better understand code. 

The committee directs the USD(AT&L), the CIO, and the Director of NSA to carefully assess the tools that NSA has and is developing and determine what could be utilized in the DOD acquisition 

system. The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency is 

also developing advanced machine code analysis capabilities that 

DOD should carefully track. 

The importance of better automated code analysis to the cyber 

mission is clear. The Clinton administration’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan called for the development of advanced tools 

for code vulnerability analysis. In 2003, the NSA Information Assurance Director testified before the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Science, and Research and Development of the Select Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives that 

‘‘a significant cybersecurity improvement over the next decade will 

be found in enhancing our ability to find and eliminate malicious 

code in large software applications . . . There is little coordinated 

effort today to develop tools and techniques to examine effectively 

either source or executable software. I believe that this problem is 

significant enough to warrant a considerable effort.’’ 

Yet DOD has never invested in tool development. The committee 

directs the USD(AT&L) to evaluate the state of the art in commercial and government tools for automated software code analysis and 

reverse engineering, and determine whether DOD should initiate a 

focused tool development program. The committee requests a briefing on this evaluation at the time of the submission of the budget 

request for fiscal year 2014. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
168 

Competition in connection with Department of Defense data 

link systems (sec. 926) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD)(AT&L)): 

(1) To develop an inventory of all data links in use and in 

development in the Department of Defense; 

(2) To conduct a business case analysis of each data link program and make a determination whether there is adequate 

competition in development, maintenance, upgrade, and new 

procurement, and if not, whether the program should be 

opened up to competition; 

(3) For each data link program that is identified for increased competition, to develop a plan that addresses how any 

policy, legal, programmatic, or technical barriers to competition 

will be overcome; and 

(4) For each program where competition is determined to be 

inadvisable, to prepare a justification for that conclusion. 

The committee expects the Under Secretary to develop a working 

definition of the term ‘‘data link systems’’, consistent with existing 

understanding, for the purpose of identifying systems to be included in the inventory required by this provision. 

In conducting the business case analyses, this provision would 

require the USD(AT&L) to solicit the views of industry on the merits and feasibility of opening up programs to competition. This provision would require the USD(AT&L) to provide a report to Congress in conjunction with the submission of the fiscal year 2015 

budget request. Finally, the provision would require the Comptroller General to provide an assessment of the report to Congress. 

Integration of critical signals intelligence capabilities (sec. 

927) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) 

Task Force to develop a plan to integrate multiple technical signals 

intelligence (SIGINT) capabilities together to satisfy requirements 

to detect, identify, track, and precisely locate communications 

equipment from airborne platforms. Multiple program offices in 

multiple organizations are working on this problem, and each of 

them has developed technology with separate industry partners 

that solve a piece—but only a piece—of the overall problem. 

One of the programs provides full identification but inaccurate 

geolocation and no tracking. Another provides partial identification 

and precise location, but only sporadic tracking. A third approach 

provides tracking and precise location but no identification. The 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Army are 

working on one approach with one vendor, another part of the 

Army is pursuing another with a second company, and the Air 

Force is exploiting technology developed by Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology Lincoln Laboratory. 

ISR Task Force staff are aware of the need for an integrated capability, and understand that a joint technical or operational solution is needed if none of the alternatives can be readily modified 

to achieve the ability to detect and prosecute high-value targets. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
169 

This SIGINT capability would be able to instantly cue an imaging 

sensor, such as a full-motion video or wide-area motion imagery 

camera, to enable persistent tracking. 

The provision recommended by the committee would require the 

separate services and organizations sponsoring the different but 

complementary approaches to support the ISR Task Force Director 

in developing the plan. Finally, the provision reiterates the mission 

and role played by the ISR Task Force in identifying and overseeing ISR initiatives in support of deployed forces. 

Collection and analysis of network flow data (sec. 928) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense (DOD) Chief Information Officer (CIO), in 

coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence 

(USDI), and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to take advantage of the research and development activities and capabilities 

of the Community Data Center (CDC) managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to enhance DOD’s capabilities to 

collect, analyze, and store so-called network flow data records. The 

purpose of the provision is to improve DOD’s capabilities to handle 

its own voluminous flow data records, and to potentially make this 

technology available for the defense of the country voluntarily 

through the Tier 1 Internet Service Providers (ISPs). 

In a report to Congress required by section 934 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383), the Secretary of Defense stated that ‘‘the Department recognizes that deterring malicious actors from conducting 

cyber attacks is complicated by the difficulty of verifying the location from which an attack was launched and by the need to identify 

the attacker from among a wide variety and high number of potential actors.’’ This attribution problem stems from lack of visibility 

into events and traffic taking place on the Internet. 

In speeches and testimony to the committee, General Alexander, 

Commander of U.S. Cyber Command, has clearly stated that the 

government is not going to be monitoring the communications entering, leaving, or traversing the United States to detect cyber attacks. The committee concurs that such monitoring would be inappropriate and, in many cases, unlawful. However, General Alexander has also indicated clearly his conviction that, in the event of 

a nation-state attack on the country that Cyber Command is called 

upon to defeat, it is essential that Cyber Command be able to ‘‘see 

[the attack] in time to stop it.’’ If Cyber Command cannot see the 

attack developing, ‘‘we’re not going to block it.’’ General Alexander 

has indicated that the government will rely on the private sector— 

including the ISPs—to help provide that detection capability and 

warning. 

The problem is that the ISPs currently do not collect the data 

necessary to reliably perform this type of early warning and attack 

assessment function. In traditional telephone service, the service 

providers collect and retain records of every call that is made—the 

‘‘to/from,’’ the time of the call, its duration, and the like. Under 

Federal Communications Commission rules, such call data records 

are comprehensively collected and retained for a long period. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
170 

In the case of the Internet, the analogue to the call data record 

is network flow data—for example, the ‘‘to/from’’ of an email, the 

time it was sent, its size, and so forth. However, in contrast to telephony, the ISPs do not routinely or comprehensively collect or 

keep this net flow data, because there has never been a business 

reason for doing so. Over time, the ISPs have learned that such 

records are useful for cybersecurity, and have invested in dedicated 

equipment and specially developed analysis tools to capture and 

analyze them. But the amount of metadata for Internet traffic is 

staggering—orders of magnitude larger than telephony—and so 

even today the ISPs only gather records on a relatively small percentage of the traffic traversing their networks. What they do collect is immensely useful for cybersecurity, to be sure—this capability is a mainstay of ISP managed security services, used for 

identifying intrusions and compromised computers. But because 

the traffic records are only sampled, it is impossible to reliably and 

comprehensively detect threats, identify the origin of attacks, identify the command and control nodes controlling the operations, and 

provide early warning and characterization of major attacks in real 

time. 

Providing warning and situational awareness for defending DOD 

networks, federal and state government networks, and those of 

critical infrastructure will require substantially greater net flow 

data collection and analysis. It is incumbent on DOD to invest in 

technology to make it easier and less expensive to achieve the scale 

required for the private sector to potentially assist the government 

in defending the country. 

DISA’s CDC is already the focus for DOD’s research on the comprehensive collection and analysis of flow data records on the traffic that enters and leaves the Department. The CDC hosts technologies developed and being investigated by DISA and USDI. The 

committee believes that other commercial companies have additional capabilities to apply to this problem. 

Department of Defense use of National Security Agency 

cloud computing database and intelligence community 

cloud computing infrastructure and services (sec. 929) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) Accumulo cloud computing database by other Department of Defense (DOD) components after September 30, 2013, unless the Chief Information Officer certifies that there are no viable commercial open source databases that have the security features of Accumulo, or that 

Accumulo itself has become a successful open source database 

project. The provision also would require that Department of Defense and intelligence community officials coordinate fully on the 

use by DOD components of cloud computing infrastructure and 

services offered by the intelligence community for purposes other 

than intelligence analysis to ensure consistency with the DOD information technology efficiencies initiative, data center and server 

consolidation plans, and cybersecurity plans and policies. 

The committee applauds NSA’s decision to adopt open source architectures and software for most of its cloud computing development. However, the committee disagrees with NSA’s decision to deVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
171 

velop its own cloud computing database—called Accumulo—rather 

than adapt an open source version of the Google BigTable product. 

The committee understands that NSA decided to build a government solution several years ago because the open source systems 

lacked security features that NSA considers essential. In hindsight, 

the committee believes it would have been smarter for NSA to have 

worked with industry and the open source community to add NSA’s 

security features to the open source database systems. Indeed, the 

committee believes that NSA should pursue that course now. 

The downside of using a government-unique database is that, 

compared to open source products, there will be far fewer developers contributing to technology advances, and all of the applications, analytic tools, and functionality that the open source community and commercial industry are developing for cloud computing 

will not be compatible or interoperable with the NSA database, depriving the government of valuable innovation. The committee believes it is very likely that the rapidly expanding and innovating 

cloud computing industry will pass NSA by in a hurry, with lagging performance and higher costs. The consequences would not be 

confined to NSA, since the Army intelligence community has already adopted the NSA cloud architecture, and NSA is strongly 

urging the entire Department of Defense to do likewise. One of 

NSA’s arguments is that the security features of Accumulo are essential for the cybersecurity of DOD as a whole. 

NSA is making an effort to heal its divergence from the open 

source community by proposing Accumulo as an open source project 

under the Apache Foundation as a competitor to existing Apache 

Foundation open source databases like HBase and Cassandra, 

which are widely used and supported in industry. 

The committee believes it is important to ensure that there are 

options available if Accumulo does not in fact become a viable and 

widely supported open source project. The committee is aware of 

commercial interest in the cell-level data tagging security features 

that NSA built into Accumulo. These features should be as useful 

to industry clients who need to protect and control access to the 

data resident in cloud facilities as they are to the intelligence community and DOD. 

If Accumulo is successful, or if the commercial open source community produces nothing comparable to Accumulo’s security features, this provision would permit Accumulo to be used in DOD 

outside of NSA. But if Accumulo is not an open source success, and 

if industry follows NSA’s security lead, the Department should use 

a commercial product. This provision would give NSA almost 2 

years since it made the Accumulo open source proposal to Apache 

to succeed. The deadline in this provision is also sufficiently distant 

to enable DOD components and industry to plan accordingly. 

Under the direction of the Director of National Intelligence, the 

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and NSA are planning to provide 

cloud infrastructure and software ‘‘as a service’’ to all of the intelligence community. As noted, NSA is offering a government implementation of open source standards. CIA is offering a competitively 

awarded commercial solution. These cloud services would cover all 

manner of computing needs and capabilities, not just intelligence 

analysis. This provision is also intended to ensure that DOD comVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
172 

ponents’ use of these cloud services is consistent with DOD information technology policies and plans. The committee notes that the 

software services that the CIA may offer to DOD customers could 

include analytic databases like HBase and Cassandra, and other 

commercial open source products, potentially providing an alternative to Accumulo. 

Electro-optical imagery (sec. 930) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to 

sustain through fiscal year 2013 the commercial imagery collection 

capacity planned under the Enhanced View program approved in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81). 

This provision would require the Vice Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff to conduct a comprehensive analysis of imagery requirements for the Department of Defense (DOD). The provision 

would also require a study of the potential role of commercial-class 

imagery in meeting the needs of the government. This provision 

would require the completion of these studies in time to inform decisions on the fiscal year 2014 budget and the fiscal year 2015 

budget request. 

This provision would require the Congressional Budget Office 

(CBO) Director to examine whether the administration’s proposed 

actions on commercial imagery are consistent with Presidential policy directives, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and statute, all of which use similar language regarding the use of commercial products and capabilities. The President’s most recent National 

Space Policy, for example, directs the Executive Branch to ‘‘purchase and use commercial space capabilities and services to the 

maximum practical extent when such capabilities and services are 

available in the marketplace and meet United States Government 

requirements [and] modify commercial space capabilities and services to meet government requirements when existing commercial 

capabilities and services do not fully meet these requirements and 

the potential modification represents a more cost-effective and 

timely acquisition approach for the government.’’ 

Similarly, the FAR requires government agencies to ‘‘determine 

if commercial items or, to the extent commercial items suitable to 

meet the agency’s needs are not available, nondevelopmental items 

are available that meet the agency’s requirements, could be modified to meet the agency’s requirements, or could meet the agency’s 

requirements if those requirements were modified to a reasonable 

extent.’’ Very similar language is contained in section 2377 of title 

10, United States Code. 

The committee has been unhappy with Executive Branch planning for imagery collection from space for years. A series of very 

expensive programmatic debacles by the National Reconnaissance 

Office (NRO) was followed by years of chaotic lurches in policy and 

program planning that reflected deep conflicts among the organizations responsible for operational requirements, acquisition oversight in DOD, oversight of intelligence in DOD, the imagery functional manager in the intelligence community, the NRO, and the 

Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
173 

Several years ago, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

and Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council stated 

that DOD required a more survivable wartime capability to collect 

wide-area imagery at moderate resolution, and advocated a larger 

constellation of commercial satellites to meet this requirement. 

The Vice Chairman subsequently proposed that commercial satellites, with some performance modifications, be acquired as the 

primary means of collecting electro-optical imagery from space for 

DOD and the intelligence community, based on modeling and analysis conducted through the Joint Staff. 

The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) rejected that proposal 

in favor of evolving legacy government-developed capabilities and 

attempting to rapidly develop new ones. This debate was carried to 

the White House before it was short-circuited by an agreement 

struck between the DNI and the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense agreed that DOD would not challenge the NRO’s 

plan to acquire new imaging capabilities. But the Secretary of Defense concluded that the DNI’s plan presented significant risks of 

gaps in capability and that prudence dictated an expansion of commercial imaging capability to meet DOD wartime requirements and 

to mitigate the risk of collection shortfalls. 

This plan was put into effect at a vigorous pace. The government 

appealed to the commercial data provider companies to more than 

double their on-orbit collection capacity in a short time with the 

promise that the government would consume a large proportion of 

that capacity over a 10-year period. The commercial data providers, 

on the basis of this government commitment, proceeded towards 

adding the equivalent of two more satellites that would be available to meet government requirements. 

Meanwhile, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) 

continued to study the potential for commercial-class satellites to 

meet all of the government’s needs. The committee commissioned 

an evaluation by its scientific advisory body, building on the previous assessments of the former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff, that concluded that enhanced commercial satellites could 

meet or exceed the overwhelming majority of electro-optical imaging requirements at less cost and risk, and that such an approach 

would provide greater resilience and survivability, and a broader, 

competitive industrial base. 

The DNI then sponsored its own analysis, which concluded that 

a larger number of smaller commercial satellites would not be less 

expensive than the satellite capabilities the government planned to 

acquire. The Senate Committee on Armed Services directed an additional analysis by the Joint Staff and the Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation office to establish a new requirements baseline 

and the cost of meeting those requirements with alternative spacecraft designs in the classified annex to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81). DOD declined to conduct this analysis. 

After deciding that commercial-class imaging satellites should 

not replace the satellites built under NRO program management, 

the ODNI and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence 

(USDI) in late 2011 took the position that the commercial augmentation program approved by former Secretary of Defense Gates 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
174 

was not needed and should be terminated in order to save money. 

This proposal was not based on a new requirements assessment, or 

a risk assessment, but nonetheless was presented to Congress in 

the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2013. The Office of 

Management and Budget allowed the drastic cutback to commercial imagery to be presented to Congress with the fiscal year 2013 

budget, but directed ODNI, USDI, and the Joint Staff to study 

whether this action was warranted. 

This obviously reverses the proper order of events. Appropriate 

reexamination of the foundation for a major program established 

by the Secretary of Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff should precede a decision to terminate it. 

The need for care is underscored by the fact that the plan presented in the budget request would result in the elimination of one 

of the two competing commercial data provider companies from 

government procurement, and could result in the collapse of one of 

the companies or a merger or acquisition. In that eventuality, it appears that the government’s impetuous actions would be the determining cause: it was the government that encouraged the two companies to dramatically expand their collection capacity, including 

by borrowing money to accelerate satellite acquisitions; and when 

the government then just as suddenly announced that it no longer 

wanted this additional capacity, the stock price of both companies 

plummeted. While the government is not legally liable, the government’s wild swing in demand has exposed two healthy companies 

to financial risk, and, if one is forced to exit the business, will lead 

to a monopoly in the market and a narrowing of the government’s 

options for future procurements. 

The committee believes that the status quo ante should be restored, as far as possible, until additional studies are conducted to 

allow both the Executive Branch and Congress to make informed 

decisions. 

The committee believes that there is ample evidence that commercial imaging capabilities could today satisfy a large majority of 

military requirements, and, if modified for enhancements, could 

meet all but the most stressing requirements. In the case of the 

most stressing requirements, the question is whether the benefit of 

meeting them is justified by the marginal cost of doing so. As noted 

above, the ODNI study concluded that meeting the government’s 

needs for electro-optical imagery from space can be accomplished 

better and at somewhat less cost by a government acquisition of a 

different design. The committee believes that additional, independent analysis of this contention is essential. 

The ODNI and USDI concluded that the government is acquiring 

capabilities to collect more imagery than is required, and recommended lopping off commercial acquisitions. In light of the pressures on the budget, and the policy expressed by former Secretary 

of Defense Gates to seek the ‘‘80 percent solution’’ rather than ‘‘exquisite’’ ones, three questions need to be addressed: 

(1) Is the originally planned collection capacity actually in excess 

of DOD’s wartime requirements? 

(2) If yes, is the correct response to reduce commercial acquisitions or to scale back or eliminate the government-developed solution? and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
175 

(3) If no, should the original Enhanced View commercial imagery 

program be restored and sustained or should the government-developed solution be expanded? 

The committee also directs the CBO Director to make use of performance modeling results and analyses already available from the 

Joint Staff, industry, and the SSCI; and cost modeling, existing 

cost estimates, and actuals from ongoing programs in government 

and industry. As necessary and appropriate, the Director should 

conduct new cost modeling and estimating to ensure that a variety 

of reasonable assumptions and acquisition approaches are considered to achieve confidence in cost comparisons. This provision would authorize $125.0 million to sustain the level 

of commercial imagery collection at roughly the level that will be 

maintained throughout fiscal year 2012 and through the first quarter of fiscal year 2013 through existing Service Level Agreements. 

Software licenses of the Department of Defense (sec. 931) 

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) $37.0 billion information 

technology (IT) budget request constitutes almost half of the Federal Government’s overall IT budget for fiscal year 2013. Given the 

size of this investment, it is important that the Department rationalize current IT outlays and identify those investments that need 

to be integrated with other solutions or curtailed to ensure the 

most efficient use of resources. One area of duplication and inefficiency identified by the Government Accountability Office and by 

the Department is that of software licenses. In addition, the committee has recognized that application and software reduction is a 

key component of IT efficiencies, as referenced in section 2867 

(b)(1)(A)(v) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81). 

The committee recommends a provision that requires the DOD 

Chief Information Officer (CIO) to conduct, within 180 days of the 

enactment of this Act, a Department-wide inventory of software licenses, examine license utilization rates, and assess the current 

and future Departmental need for software licenses. Based on the 

results of this assessment, the CIO shall establish a plan to align 

the number and type of software licenses with the needs of the Department. Upon completion of the inventory and assessment, the 

CIO or their designee shall brief the results to the congressional 

defense committees. 

Immediately upon completion of the inventory and assessment, 

the CIO is directed to provide the data and findings to the Comptroller General of the United States. Not later than May 1, 2014, 

the Comptroller General will deliver to the congressional defense 

committees a review of the Department’s assessment and performance plan. 

The committee recognizes that defining the scope of software license duplication throughout the military departments, components, and major commands will be challenging, and urges the CIO 

to apply the utmost diligence in the undertaking of this inventory 

and assessment. Lastly, the committee acknowledges that the CIO 

may need the ability to grant exceptions to certain instances of 

software, depending upon individual circumstances, such as classification. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
176 

Defense Clandestine Service (sec. 932) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation of appropriated Military Intelligence Program (MIP) 

funds in fiscal year 2013 to exceed the number of personnel conducting or supporting human intelligence within the Department of 

Defense (DOD) as of April 20, 2012. This provision would also require the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation 

(CAPE) to provide an estimate of the total cost of the Defense Clandestine Service (DCS) to the congressional defense and intelligence 

committees. This cost estimate should look at the total costs of the 

DCS, including whether that cost is incurred in the MIP, in the 

National Intelligence Program, or in other non-intelligence funding 

for the Department of Defense (e.g. Major Force Program 11 funding for U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)). The estimate should include costs in the out years of the future-years defense program and beyond, especially those associated with closing 

existing personnel basing; creating new basing arrangements; and 

supporting overseas deployments. 

The provision also would require the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Intelligence (USDI) to provide a report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees by February 1, 2013, that provides or explains: • where DOD case officers will be deployed or based and a 

schedule for those deployments; • certification that the prospective locations can and will accommodate these deployments; • the objectives established for each military service, 

USSOCOM, and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to improve career management for case officers, and the plans to 

achieve the objectives of the DCS; and • any Memoranda of Agreement or Understanding necessary 

to implement planned reforms with other departments and 

agencies and between DOD components. 

The committee appreciates the fact that the USDI and the Director of the DIA, in initiating the DCS, intend to make reforms to 

the Defense Human Intelligence (HUMINT) Service to correct longstanding problems. These problems include inefficient utilization of 

personnel trained at significant expense to conduct clandestine 

HUMINT; poor or non-existent career management for trained 

HUMINT personnel; cover challenges; and unproductive deployment locations. Multiple studies since the end of the Cold War document these deficiencies, and they led the Commission on the Roles 

and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community, 

chaired by two former Secretaries of Defense, to recommend transferring to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) all responsibilities 

for the clandestine recruitment of human sources, utilizing military 

personnel on detail from the DOD as necessary. 

The committee notes that President Bush authorized 50 percent 

growth in the CIA’s case officer workforce, which followed significant growth under President Clinton. Since 9/11, DOD’s case officer 

ranks have grown substantially as well. The committee is concerned that, despite this expansion and the winding down of two 

overseas conflicts that required large HUMINT resources, DOD believes that its needs are not being met. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
177 

The committee concludes that DOD needs to demonstrate that it 

can improve the management of clandestine HUMINT before undertaking any further expansion. Furthermore, if DOD is able to 

utilize existing resources much more effectively, the case could be 

made that investment in this area could decline, rather than remain steady or grow, to assist the Department in managing its fiscal and personnel challenges. 

Authority for short-term extension of lease for aircraft supporting the Blue Devil intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance program (sec. 933) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Air Force to extend or renew the current lease of aircraft to support the Blue Devil intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) program. Section 2401 of title 10, United States 

Code, limits such leases to 5 years. The lease for the Air Force Blue 

Devil ISR aircraft deployed first in Iraq and now in Afghanistan 

will expire in September 2013. This ISR system is extremely useful, having contributed directly to the take-down of large numbers 

of high-value targets in the Kandahar region. Theater commanders 

have requested that this asset be sustained indefinitely in theater. 

The committee is deeply concerned that, despite a year’s notice 

from the committee that plans had to be made to address this lease 

expiration, the Department of Defense has yet to decide on a definite course of action to sustain this capability. 

The committee understands that the Air Force leadership and 

the ISR Task Force are seriously examining alternatives to comply 

with section 2401, including buying the existing Blue Devil aircraft, 

buying new C–12 aircraft, modifying existing Liberty aircraft, and 

modifying the Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles equipped with Gorgon Stare wide-area motion imagery systems. 

Based on information that the Air Force provided to the committee, the most attractive option is to purchase additional C–12 

aircraft. This option would deliver the needed capability the soonest. All other options under consideration take considerably more 

time, or would entail reducing deployed ISR support in order to 

modify existing aircraft, or would not satisfy requirements. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with the Director of the ISR Task Force, to provide a recommendation on a way forward by September 1, 2012, along with 

a program schedule that would enable Congress to set an appropriate end date for the lease extension. 

Sense of the Senate on potential security risks to Department of Defense networks (sec. 934) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate regarding potential risks to the security of Department of Defense (DOD) networks from the incorporation of 

equipment and software from foreign sources, and the need for 

DOD authority and processes to mitigate such risks beyond those 

that already exist for covered National Security Systems acquired 

by DOD. The committee provided existing authority to address cybersecurity supply chain risks to DOD National Security Systems 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
178 

in section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383). 

The provision acknowledges the difficulty involved in blocking 

sales of information technology systems and services due to concerns about cybersecurity while maintaining our commitment to 

free trade and fair and transparent competition. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

National Language Service Corps (sec. 941) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (52 U.S.C. 

1901 et seq.) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish and 

maintain a National Language Service Corps to provide a pool of 

civilian personnel with foreign language skills who agree to provide 

foreign language services to the Department of Defense or another 

department or agency of the United States. 

Report on education and training and promotion rates for 

pilots of remotely piloted aircraft (sec. 942) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force to provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees by January 31, 2013, on 

remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), pilot promotion, and education 

rates. The provision specifies that the report includes the following 

elements: an in-depth analysis of the causes for persistently lower 

average promotion and education rates of RPA pilots; the long-term 

impact on the Air Force if these low rates are sustained; a plan to 

remedy these imbalances; and near-term and longer-term actions 

the Air Force intends to undertake to implement the plan. The report must also provide an explanation of any direct or indirect impact of plan implementation on the achievement and sustainment 

of the 65 RPA combat air patrol objective. 

The committee is very concerned about the consistently downward trend in promotion rates of RPA operators. Over the course 

of the last 5 years, promotion percentages from Majors Promotion 

Boards have declined from 96 percent to 78 percent, compared to 

a consistent range of between 96 and 91 percent for their peers. 

Education rates also consistently lag those for manned aircraft pilots at all levels. It is simply unacceptable for service as an RPA 

operator to be relegated to substandard status in terms of personnel qualifications or treatment. The committee expects the Air 

Force to vigorously address this problem. 

Budget Items 

Operationally Responsive Space Funding 

For Fiscal Year 2013, the Department of Defense proposed to deauthorize the Operationally Responsive Space Office and move 

$10,000,000 from the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program (PE 0604857F, line 54) to three other programs, $3,000,000 

to the Technology Transition Program, PE 0604858F, line 55, $2 

million to the Space Based Infrared Program, PE0604441F, line 69, 

$2,000,000 to Space Control Technology, PE 0603438F, line 32, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
179 

$1,500,000 to Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite program, PE 0603430F, line 30 and $1,500,000 to the Global Positioning System III Operational Control Segment, PE 0603423F, 

line 112. The Committee rejects this transfer and restores the 

$10,000,000 to the ORS PE 0604857F. 

The Committee increases PE 0604857F by $35,000,000 to 

$45,000,000 total to continue working with the COCOMs and in 

particular PACOM on building responsive low cost satellites similar to ORS–1. This is in addition to the legislative provision which 

direct the ORS program to build a low cost weather satellite from 

the weather satellite follow on program funding. 

Space Test Program 

The budget request for fiscal year 2013 included $10,051,000 in 

PE 65864F for the Space Test Program. This is a decrease in funding from the $47,926,000 requested and authorized for fiscal year 

2012. The Department of Defense has also proposed to terminate 

the program. This low cost program, created by the Commander, 

Air Force Systems Command, General Schriever, in 1965, has been 

the principal mechanism that has put experimental payloads into 

space. By offering low cost access to space this program has led to 

a family of important civil and military satellite systems we rely 

on today, including Milstar, Advanced Extremely High Frequency, 

Global Positioning System, Defense Support Program, Defense Satellite Communications System, Tracking & Data Relay Satellite, 

and the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. More importantly this program serves as the space gateway to universities and 

military academies, and for their students to put payloads into 

space and in turn create our future cadre of space leaders. When 

combined with the proposed termination of the Operationally Responsive Space program, the termination of these two efforts 

amounts to no more than $170.0 million but has many times the 

impact on the ability of the Department of Defense to innovate and 

lower the cost of future satellite systems. The committee rejects the 

proposed termination of the Space Test Program and increases the 

program by $37,875,000 to restore it to the prior fiscal year’s funding level. 

The committee admonishes the Department to look carefully at 

the combined effects of terminating two programs that have synergistically worked together to lead innovations in national security 

space while dramatically reducing costs. 

Items of Special Interest 

Determination of accuracy of spectrum auction proceeds 

The committee directs the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) to review past spectrum auctions (including those for national security systems) performed by Executive Branch agencies to 

determine historical differences between initial relocation cost estimates and actual auction proceeds. As part of this review, the committee directs the GAO to update its 2001 report to the congressional defense committees on the auction of the 1755–1850 MHz 

band. The committee asks the GAO to determine if the cost of 

vacating or sharing subsets of the 1755–1850 MHz band is suffiVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
180 

ciently captured in estimates and whether auction proceeds are 

able to compensate vacating such subsets. The committee directs 

an initial briefing no later than February 28, 2013. 

Development of cyber security expertise and partnerships 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue to support multi-disciplinary programs of study and research 

that focus on developing U.S. cyber security expertise and tackling 

vital cyber security issues, such as the protection of critical infrastructure on which the Department of Defense relies for critical 

mission capability, and which the Department would be called 

upon to defend in the event of a cyber attack on the United States. 

Special effort should be made to glean best practices from already established programs, nationally and internationally, at military and civilian organizations and institutions of higher education. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees within 180 days of the enactment of this Act on potential partnerships and methods for 

gleaning best practices for personnel development. 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program 

Since the committee first raised concerns about the Department 

of Defense’s strategy to acquire space launch under the Evolved 

Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program last year, the Department has moved in a positive direction. First, whereas the space 

portfolio appeared disconnected from the Air Force’s acquisition 

oversight apparatus, this portfolio is now properly aligned under 

the Air Force senior acquisition executive. This will help ensure 

that space launch programs are subjected to appropriate oversight 

and acquisition discipline. Second, the newly designated Program 

Executive Officer (PEO) for Space Launch will be able to focus 

more on cost, schedule, and performance than before, when the 

PEO space portfolio encompassed space launch and did not allow 

for sufficient focus on EELV issues. Third, whereas the System 

Program Director (SPD) and program managers in this portfolio 

previously focused on operational mission success, there now appears to be an interest in achieving a proper balance on both mission success and cost. Finally, whereas the SPD tended to have a 

‘‘stand-off’’ approach to potential new entrants and little interest in 

creating a competitive environment conducive to driving the costs 

of space launch down, today the Air Force appears amendable to 

embracing new entrants and the prospect of competition more and 

has developed a path to certification. 

The committee’s original concerns arose from concerns raised by 

prospective new entrants that the 2011 proposed block buy of 

launch vehicles from the incumbent EELV provider would effectively freeze them out of the EELV launch market until 2020. This 

concern was magnified by a Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) report in September 2011, that recommended that the Department assess engine costs and mission assurance activities; reassess the length of the proposed block buy; and consider how to 

address broader launch acquisition and technology development 

issues. With the Department having generally concurred with 

GAO’s recommendations, Congress required the Department to exVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
181 

plain how it intends to implement each of GAO’s recommendations, 

or explain how it will otherwise address the deficiencies identified 

in GAO’s report. The Department’s deadline was March 31, 2012, 

and the report was delivered to Congress April 19, 2012. The committee understands that GAO is currently assessing the information contained in the report as required by section 839 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 

112–81). 

In complying with the requirement under section 839 that EELV 

be re-designated as a major defense acquisition program (MDAP) 

or otherwise provide to Congress and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics all of the reports 

on cost, schedule, and performance that would be required if it 

were designated as an MDAP, on April 12, 2012, the Department 

notified the committee that the EELV program exceeded the ‘‘critical’’ cost thresholds specified under section 2433 of title 10, United 

States Code (‘‘Nunn-McCurdy’’) for both Program Acquisition Unit 

Cost and Average Procurement Cost. The breach was based on the 

program’s 2007 current baseline estimate and the 2004 original 

baseline estimate exceeding 25 and 50 percent respectively. The 

committee understands that the Department will certify to Congress by July 13, 2012, that the necessary steps have been taken 

to meet the requirements of section 2433(b) of title 10, United 

States Code. 

As part of the Department’s effort to restructure the EELV program to provide cost transparency and promote competition from 

new entrants, the Department has issued a Request for Proposal 

(RFP) to the incumbent EELV contractor that will allow it to obtain and carefully analyze certified cost data to build a pricing matrix consisting of the number of cores versus years over the futureyears defense program (FYDP). This matrix will help the Department structure a contract to achieve optimal pricing while allowing 

for ‘‘on-ramps’’ of new entrants who meet the Department’s new entrant mission assurance criteria. 

The Department has told the committee that it is restructuring 

the Launch Services contract from a stand-alone contract with the 

incumbent EELV provider to one that is integrated with the acquisition of the booster, mission support, and payload integration to 

reflect the total cost to launch. This integrated contract will be 

used to compare amongst multiple competitors. The committee has 

been concerned about the distinction between Launch Capability 

and Launch Services that have been structured into the EELV program and how this distinction renders opaque to congressional 

oversight of the program’s true overall costs. For this reason, the 

committee will ensure that whatever decision is made by the Air 

Force regarding the next EELV contract is not analytically based 

inappropriately on this distinction. The committee intends to closely examine how the Air Force addresses this issue more broadly as 

its effort to restructure this program to accommodate competition 

matures, and will address this issue further as needed. 

To further assist new entrants into the EELV market, the Department will use a bridging contract called ‘‘Orbital Suborbital 

Program–3’’ or ‘‘OSP–3’’ which will be used to launch low-risk naVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
182 

tional security payloads and in turn step the new entrants through 

the Department’s mission assurance criteria. 

Generally, the committee is encouraged by the steps that the Department has taken to help control EELV costs and encourage new 

entrants to provide competition in the EELV market. The committee has been informed that the Department will have a final 

EELV contract structure in July 2012, that they believe will optimize cost per launch with the incumbent EELV contractor while 

providing ‘‘on-ramps’’ for new entrants who satisfy mission assurance criteria under the OSP–3 contract. Given the utility of competition to ensuring the affordability of access to space, the committee believes that whatever contracting structure is ultimately 

selected must be sufficiently flexible to provide meaningful and realistic opportunities for duly certified new entrants to participate 

in the EELV program at any point within the selected contract duration that a new entrant (if any) is duly certified within that selected contract duration. 

The committee will carefully review the restructured EELV contract that the Department will present in July 2012, in light of all 

of the concerns it has raised to date to ensure that national security access to space is maintained, while balanced by bringing competition into the EELV launch market. 

Navigation location and tracking in GPS-denied environments 

Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) based navigation systems have 

become critical to mission success for the Department of Defense 

in areas such as situational awareness and precision weapon employment. Command and control of U.S. forces is dependent on reliable and accurate GPS signal reception. Our forces are currently 

operating in complex terrain and environments which can, on occasion, introduce unreliable GPS navigation signals for the 

warfighter. Current GPS navigation systems can be challenged 

with line-of-sight constraints such as mountains, dense tree cover, 

and complex structured environments and have minimal, if any, 

ability to navigate and/or track inside buildings, caves, underground structures and other challenging locations. 

Additionally, future force initiatives recognize the possibility that 

a technologically advanced foe could disrupt satellite based systems 

such as GPS. Reliable location through the GPS satellite constellation facilitates uninterrupted use of ground-to-ground precision 

missiles, navigation, and command and control. Recent events have 

pointed to hostile nation states introducing jamming in an effort to 

block or degrade GPS signals. The Department of Defense must develop and incorporate training and contingency operations in a 

GPS denial environment to ensure mission success. 

Reports on airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements and investment strategy 

The committee is aware of the increased demand for persistent 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) resources to 

meet each combatant command’s full range of military operations. 

The committee acknowledges the Department of Defense has had 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
183 

to make difficult decisions on the acquisition, procurement, and allocation of its persistent ISR assets due to fiscal constraints alone. 

However, Congress has not been provided a formal report outlining the Department of Defense’s long-term investment strategy 

to develop, procure, and sustain the necessary ISR platforms to 

meet these ISR collection requirements. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, working in conjunction with the combatant commands, to provide the congressional defense and intelligence committees a classified report, not later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, that identifies the enduring requirements for persistent ISR collection in support of each combatant command’s full 

range of military operations. Further, the committee directs the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, working 

in conjunction with the service secretaries, to provide a long-term 

investment strategy, describing the fixed-wing persistent ISR capabilities necessary in both permissive and non-permissive environments to meet those collection requirements and the resources necessary to develop, procure or sustain those platforms. This investment strategy shall also be provided concurrently in a written classified report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees not later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act. 

Report on cost savings in the Joint Space Operations Center 

Mission System Program 

The committee believes that improvements to the space situational awareness and space command and control capabilities of 

the United States are critical, and the Department of Defense has 

the opportunity to achieve efficiency and cost effectiveness by utilizing, to the maximum extent possible, readily available commercial and government-developed capabilities. The committee is 

aware that the Air Force has made changes in its acquisition process, and the committee fully expects the Air Force to pursue a tailored incremental information technology approach with priority 

given to transition from the legacy Space Defense Operations Center system by 2014. The committee also expects the Air Force to 

utilize and achieve cost savings by pursuing a tailored incremental 

acquisition approach that leverages investment in existing government prototypes and industry applications to rapidly deliver needed capabilities. 

The committee directs the Air Force to provide a report within 

180 days of enactment of this Act that: (1) describes the government and commercial technologies that can be incorporated into 

the Joint Space Operations Center Mission System Program; (2) 

quantifies the cost savings that can be achieved by using commercial items to the maximum extent practical; and (3) summarizes 

how the acquisition strategy will incorporate commercial technologies. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(185) 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

transfer of up to $5.0 billion of funds authorized in division A of 

this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. Transfers of funds between military personnel authorizations would not be counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision. 

Authority to transfer of funds to the National Nuclear Security Administration to sustain nuclear weapons modernization (sec. 1002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

transfer of, subject to regular reprogramming guidelines, $150.0 

million from the Department of Defense to the National Nuclear 

Security Administration if the fiscal year 2013 authorization and 

appropriations levels fall below the level outlined for fiscal year 

2013 as found in the report from section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), 

which is $7.9 billion. 

Audit readiness of Department of Defense statements of 

budgetary resources (sec. 1003) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1003 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84) to incorporate the goal established by 

the Secretary of Defense of validating the statement of budgetary 

resources of the Department of Defense (DOD) as ready for audit 

by the end of fiscal year 2014. The provision would require the 

DOD Chief Management Officer and the Chief Management Officers of the military departments to ensure that the plans to achieve 

this goal minimize one-time fixes and manual work-arounds, are 

sustainable and affordable, and will not delay full auditability of 

DOD’s financial statements. 

Report on effects of budget sequestration on the Department of Defense (sec. 1004) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make certain 

findings and require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report no later than August 15, 

2012 on the impact on the Department of Defense of the sequestration of funds authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2013 for 

the Department if automatically triggered on January 2, 2013. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
186 

Subtitle B—Counter-Drug Activities 

Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to law enforcement agencies conducting counterterrorism activities (sec. 1011) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1 

fiscal year the support by joint task forces under section 1022(b) of 

the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 

2004 (Public Law 108–136), as most recently amended by section 

1004 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81). 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense is currently 

using this authority to conduct only one operation. While the committee is pleased to learn of the Department’s judicious use of this 

authority, the committee also believes there are additional activities that could potentially be conducted, particularly in Northwest 

Africa. 

Requirement for biennial certification on provision of support for counter-drug activities to certain foreign governments (sec. 1012) 

This section would amend section 1033 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85), as 

most recently amended by section 1006 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), to require 

biennial certification rather than annual certification for the Department of Defense to provide additional support for counterdrug 

activities to certain foreign governments. 

Authority to support the unified counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1013) 

The committee recommends a provision that would permit, for 1 fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense to expend not more than $50.0 

million to support the unified counterdrug and counterterrorism 

campaign of the Government of Colombia. The provision would permit the Secretary to provide: (1) logistics support, services, and 

supplies; (2) the types of support authorized under section 1004(b) 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 

(Public Law 101–510), as amended; and (3) the types of support authorized under 1033(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85), as amended. The provision would prohibit U.S. personnel from participating in any combat operation in connection with assistance provided under this authority. Further, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on any assistance provided pursuant to 

this provision to the congressional defense committees on an annual basis. 

The committee notes that the provision is a modification of section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), as amended most 

recently by section 1007 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81). The committee’s intent 

is to permit the Secretary to continue all ongoing operations in support of the security forces of the Government of Colombia, including advise and assist operations which have been an important eleVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00208 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
187 

ment of U.S. support to the Government of Colombia. The committee’s underlying intent is to enhance congressional oversight of 

these activities and provide additional transparency to outside observers without degrading ongoing operations. The committee recognizes that, although the Government of Colombia has made significant progress combating narcotics trafficking and designated 

terrorist organizations, this authority is still required to assist the 

Government of Colombia consolidate the notable gains made over 

the past decade. 

Quarterly reports on use of funds in the Drug Interdiction 

and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide account (sec. 

1014) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit on a quarterly basis reports to the 

congressional defense committees setting forth, by project code, a 

description of all of the expenditures of funds and expenditures to 

support foreign counterdrug activities from the Drug Interdiction 

and Counterdrug Activities Defense-wide account. Further, the provision would repeal section 1022 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). 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards 

Retirement of naval vessels (sec. 1021) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Chief of Naval Operations to produce a report that would set forth 

a comprehensive description of the current requirements of the 

Navy for combatant vessels of the Navy, including submarines. The 

provision would also require that, if the number of these vessels is 

less than 313 ships, the report would have to include the justification of the Chief of Naval Operations for that smaller number, and 

an explanation of how that smaller number is consistent with the 

recently revised strategic guidance issued by the President and the 

Secretary of Defense in 2012. 

Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) conveyed the sense of Congress 

that ‘‘the Navy should meet its requirement for a 313-ship fleet 

until such time that modifications to the Navy’s ship fleet force 

structure are warranted, and the Secretary of the Navy provides 

Congress with a justification of any proposed modifications, supported by rigorous and sufficient warfighting analysis.’’ The Chiefs 

of Naval Operations since 2006 have consistently stated that they 

need a fleet of 313 ships to do their jobs. Nevertheless, the Navy 

has not achieved this number of ships in the fleet since falling 

below that level in the 1990s. 

In testimony before the congressional defense committees and 

other public remarks, senior Navy leaders, including the Secretary 

of the Navy, the Under Secretary of the Navy, and the Chief of 

Naval Operations, have noted that the Navy is conducting a new 

review of Navy force structure review. Navy officials say that they 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
188 

have not completed the review, but that it will probably reduce the 

goal for fleet size to approximately 300 ships. 

The committee is concerned that the Navy or the Department of 

Defense (DOD) may propose reductions in the Navy’s ship fleet 

force structure without sufficient justification. The committee reminds the Navy and DOD that the statement of the sense of Congress remains in effect, and that the committee expects that any 

proposed change in goal for the size of the Navy’s fleet will be accompanied by rigorous and sufficient analysis that is convincing. 

The committee doubts that neither a strategy shifting DOD’s 

focus to the Pacific and Asia, nor the demands of current operational requirements, nor increased investment by potential adversaries in naval forces and anti-access and area-denial capabilities 

warrant a reduction in the required Navy fleet size. 

Termination of a Maritime Prepositioning Ship squadron 

(sec. 1022) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit funding 

to terminate a Maritime Prepositioning Ship Squadron until a report is received on the impact of the termination. 

Sense of Congress on recapitalization for the Navy and 

Coast Guard (sec. 1023) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that: 

(1) the sea services of the United States should be funded 

and maintained to provide the broad spectrum of capabilities 

required to protect the national security of the United States; 

(2) such capabilities should include: 

(a) the ability to project United States power rapidly 

anywhere on the globe without the need for host nation 

basing permission or long and potentially vulnerable logistics supply lines; 

(b) the ability to land and recover maritime forces from 

the sea for direct combat action, to evacuate United States 

citizens from hostile situations, and to provide humanitarian assistance where needed; 

(c) the ability to operate from the subsurface with overpowering conventional combat power, as well as strategic 

deterrence; and 

(d) the ability to operate in collaboration with United 

States maritime partners in the common interest of preventing piracy at sea and maintaining the commercial sea 

lanes available for global commerce. 

(3) the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy, should maintain the recapitalization plans 

for the Navy as a priority in all future force structure decisions; and 

(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security should maintain the 

recapitalization plans for the Coast Guard as a priority in all 

future force structure decisions. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
189 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism 

Extension of certain prohibitions and requirements relating 

to detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for fiscal year 2013 two restrictions relating to detainees at the military 

detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

The provision would extend for 1 year the restriction in section 

1026 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 (Public Law 112–81; 125 Stat. 1566) on the use of funds made 

available to the Department of Defense to build any facility in the 

United States to house Guantanamo detainees. 

The provision would also extend for 1 year the certification requirements for transfers of Guantanamo detainees to foreign countries and other foreign entities. 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations 

Enhancement of responsibilities of the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the National Military 

Strategy (sec. 1041) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 153 of title 10, United States Code, to consolidate and clarify 

the requirements for the submission or update, if any, of the National Military Strategy, and the annual submission of the Chairman’s Risk Assessment. The amendment would also clarify the requirement for a Secretary of Defense’s Risk Mitigation Plan to accompany the risk assessment if the Chairman identifies significant 

risk in accomplishing the objectives of the National Military Strategy. 

Modification of authority on training of special operations 

forces with friendly foreign forces (sec. 1042) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 2011 of title 10, United States Code, to state that the purposes 

of the Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) authority are to 

support the training of U.S. Special Operations Forces and the 

armed forces and other security forces of a friendly foreign country. 

Consistent with current practice, the recommended modification 

would also require the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the 

Secretary of State prior to the initiation of any such training. Lastly, the recommended modification would authorize unspecified 

minor military construction projects, up to $250,000, that are in direct support of authorized training. 

The committee notes that the JCET authority is an effective tool 

for improving the language and cultural expertise of U.S. Special 

Operations Forces while providing opportunities to practice skills 

needed to conduct a variety of missions, including foreign internal 

defense, unconventional warfare, and counterterrorism. The committee also recognizes the inherent benefit of JCET events in building the capacity of foreign partners. The committee notes that the 

JCET authority allows flexibility for U.S. Special Operations Forces 

to engage with appropriate partner nation armed forces and other 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
190 

security forces, including those that conduct border and maritime 

security, internal defense and security, and counterterrorism operations. 

The committee believes the recommended modifications to the 

JCET authority more accurately reflect the current use of JCETs 

as a training and engagement tool for geographic combatant commanders and country teams. The committee notes that over the 

past decade the Department of Defense has used the JCET authority to support the development of national militaries and other security forces in key regions. In countries of particular concern, the 

Department has sought to be more persistently engaged with partners. The committee believes such persistent engagements support 

our broader counterterrorism interests, ensure U.S. access and 

placement in key regions, and enable foreign militaries to better 

support ongoing multilateral operations. The recommended modifications are intended to increase the flexibility of the JCET authority to facilitate more persistent and enduring engagement with 

partner nation security forces while continuing to provide a benefit, 

but not necessarily the primary benefit, to U.S. Special Operations 

Forces. 

Extension of authority to provide assured business guarantees to carriers participating in Civil Reserve Air Fleet 

(sec. 1043) 

Section 9515 of title 10, United States Code, provides authority 

for the Secretary of Defense to guarantee higher minimum levels 

of business than would otherwise be authorized by law to United 

States passenger carrying air carriers participating in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. This authority will expire on December 31, 2015. 

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) extend 

the sunset date to 2020; and (2) permit the Secretary to expand the 

possible uses of these assured business guarantees to cargo carrying air carriers. 

Participation of veterans in the Transition Assistance Program of the Department of Defense (sec. 1044) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize veterans to participate in the Transition Assistance Program of the 

Department of Defense for 1 year following discharge or separation 

from the armed forces. 

Modification of the Ministry of Defense Advisors Program 

(sec. 1045) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

Ministry of Defense Advisors Program, established in section 1081 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

(Public Law 112–81), to permit the Secretary of Defense to assign 

civilian employees of the Department of Defense as advisors to regional organizations with defense or security components and international organizations of which the United States is a member. 

The committee believes that regional security and international 

security organizations play an important role in ensuring stability 

and security in a number of key regions around the globe. The committee further believes providing the Secretary with the authority 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
191 

to assign individuals to these organizations is in U.S. national security interests and will assist the Secretary in influencing decisions and outcomes in various regional and international security 

organizations. 

Interagency collaboration on unmanned aircraft systems 

(sec. 1046) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) amend 

section 1036(a) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) to encourage 

technical collaboration and sharing of personnel, resources, and information among the Department of Defense (DOD), the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), and the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA); (2) direct the Secretary of Defense 

to collaborate with the FAA and NASA Administrators on solutions 

to the challenges of unmanned aerial system (UAS) integration into 

the National Airspace System (NAS); and (3) require the Secretary 

of Defense to provide an annual report for a period of 5 years on 

the progress of research and development for UAS NAS integration 

and future funding requirements. 

UASs have clearly demonstrated their immense value to DOD 

military capabilities in the global war on terrorism. Increasingly, 

UASs are contributing to missions of other agencies and departments within the United States. Large numbers of UASs now deployed overseas may be returned to the United States as the conflict in Afghanistan and operations elsewhere wind down in coming 

years, and new UASs are under development. Without the ability 

to operate freely and routinely in the NAS, UAS development and 

training—and ultimately operational capabilities—will be severely 

impacted. 

As the committee has noted repeatedly in previous years, DOD’s 

leadership belatedly realized how important and difficult UAS NAS 

integration would be. While progress has been made in the last 5 

years, the pace of development must be accelerated; greater crossagency collaboration and resource sharing will contribute to that 

objective. 

DOD has invested significantly in resolving the technical challenges of UAS NAS integration, and this research and development 

and associated resources should be utilized for the benefit of this 

government-wide initiative, where applicable. The committee is encouraged by the relationship built between DOD, the FAA, and 

NASA for coordinating research and development and planning for 

this integration. The committee also recognizes the contribution 

that the Joint Planning and Development Office’s (JDPO) report, 

‘‘NextGen Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research, Development and 

Demonstration Roadmap,’’ dated March 15, 2012, has made by providing a multi-agency perspective on the technology required to enable UAS operations and integration in the next-generation NAS. 

The committee supports and encourages a deeper collaborative relationship between DOD and its JPDO partners to expedite development of the necessary technologies and to avoid redundant activities. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
192 

Sense of Senate on notice to Congress on unfunded priorities (sec. 1047) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the service chiefs and the Commander of 

U.S. Special Operations Command should provide to Congress, 

through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense, a list of unfunded priorities, if any, within 45 

days of the submission of their annual budget request. 

Subtitle F—Reports 

Report on strategic airlift aircraft (sec. 1061) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report that sets forth various assessments related to: (1) 

possible Federal Aviation Administration certification for commercial use of a commercial variant of the C–17 aircraft, a retired C– 

17A aircraft, and a retired C–5A aircraft; and (2) the Civil Reserve 

Air Fleet (CRAF) and the potential for using these aircraft to augment capability in participating CRAF air carriers. The Secretary 

would be required to submit that report not later than 90 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Repeal of biennial report on the Global Positioning System 

(sec. 1062) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal a biennial report on global positioning systems prepared by the Department of Defense. This information can readily be obtained from the 

biennial Federal Radionavigation Plan saving approximately 

$150,000 each year in federal funds. 

Repeal of annual report on threat posed by weapons of mass 

destruction, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles (sec. 

1063) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal an annual report that costs more than $1,000,000 annually to produce 

and such information can be obtained through normal requests to 

the intelligence agencies. 

Subtitle G—Nuclear Matters 

Strategic delivery system (sec. 1071) 

The committee recommends a provision that requires the President to certify to the congressional defense committees whether 

plans to modernize strategic delivery systems are funded at a level 

equal to or more than that outlined in the November 2010 update 

to the plan found in section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). If the level 

of funding is less than that found in the November 2010 update, 

then the President must submit as part of the reporting requirements under section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), whether a lack of 

full funding will result in a loss of military capability. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
193 

If the President determines that the lack of full funding will result in a loss of military capability, he must submit with the section 1043 report a plan to preserve or retain the capability that 

would be lost, and a report that assesses the impact of the lack of 

full funding and a description of the funding required to restore or 

maintain the capability. In addition, a lack of full funding will require the President in the section 1043 report to certify adherence 

to declaration 12 of the New START Treaty concerning nuclear 

modernization. 

Requirements definition for combined warhead for certain 

missile systems (sec. 1072) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Nuclear Weapons Council to define to Congress what a combined 

warhead is so that the 6.1 and 6.2 process will have clarity in the 

out-years. 

The committee has found that contrary to statements made by 

the administration during 2010 hearings for the New START Treaty regarding a combined W88/W78 warhead as a way to save maintenance costs, that, the concept remains ill defined at the present 

time. Recent discussions have focused on two warhead systems (the 

W88 and W78) that now have interchangeable components. 

Congressional Budget Office estimate of costs of nuclear 

weapons and delivery systems (sec. 1073) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Congressional Budget Office to obtain a 10 year cost estimate of 

nuclear weapons enterprise in the Departments of Defense and Energy. 

Subtitle H—Other Matters 

Redesignation of Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies as 

the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense 

Studies (sec. 1081) 

The committee recommends a provision that would, as requested 

by the Department of Defense, redesignate the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies as the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies. 

Technical amendments to repeal statutory references to 

United States Joint Forces Command (sec. 1082) 

The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the Department of Defense, that would amend title 10, United States 

Code, to remove references to the United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) in order to reflect the disestablishment of 

USJFCOM effective August 4, 2011. 

Sense of Congress on non-United States citizens who are 

graduates of United States educational institutions with 

advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics (sec. 1083) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express a 

sense of Congress that would strongly urge the Department of DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
194 

fense to investigate innovative mechanisms to access the pool of 

talent of non-United States citizens with advanced scientific and 

technical degrees from United States institutions of higher learning. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

(Public Law 112–81) contains a provision directing the Secretary of 

Defense to conduct an assessment of current and potential mechanisms to permit the Department of Defense to employ non-United 

States citizens with critical scientific and technical skills that are 

vital to the national security interests of the United States. The 

committee is awaiting this report, due by the end of calendar year 

2012. 

In testimony before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 

Capabilities of the Senate Committee on Armed Services on April 

17, 2012, Department of Defense science and technology executives 

expressed concern over the possible unintended consequences of 

taking significant action on this front. The committee understands 

the trepidation expressed by the service executives, but feels 

strongly that the most substantial unintended consequence of lack 

of action will be the significant loss of technical talent to the country. 

Items of Special Interest 

Arctic region 

The committee recognizes the continued importance of the Arctic 

region to our broader national strategy. Declining ice cover continues to open the Arctic region and a concerted, systematic, and 

immediate effort should be undertaken to adequately protect the 

United States’ security, environmental, energy, economic, and natural resource interests in the Arctic. 

The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) and, 

in particular, U.S. Northern Command and the Department of the 

Navy, and other federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through the U.S. Coast Guard, the Department of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration and the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, for their 

progress thus far in studying the region and defining the capabilities required to effectively operate in and protect the domain. 

International and interagency collaboration is also needed to develop the necessary mapping and charting resources required for 

safe navigation and to promote security and economic interests. As 

sea ice recedes, timely weather forecasts and disaster warnings 

along with more baseline data will be required to conduct successful search and rescue missions. Search and rescue coordination, 

planning, and training for the Artic should be thoroughly analyzed 

and developed to ensure forces can successfully operate in the domain. 

The committee recognizes the importance of DOD’s involvement 

in interagency and international efforts to protect national security 

interests in the region and, accordingly, urges DOD to continue to 

work in concert with DHS to establish a formal chartered working 

group to pursue increasing Arctic capabilities in the areas of communications, maritime domain awareness, infrastructure, and presVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00216 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
195 

ence, as was recommended by U.S. Northern Command and the 

U.S. Coast Guard in a joint White Paper dated March 13, 2012. 

The committee also urges the agencies to develop an investment 

strategy for funding emerging requirements in balance with a resource constrained environment. 

B–52 Combat Network Communications Study 

The B–52 Combat Network Communications (CONECT) program 

has been executing on cost and schedule and has successfully completed all Milestone C criteria. The Senate has concerns with the 

Air Force’s decision to restructure the CONECT program to only 

replace the current Multi-Function Displays located at each of the 

crew stations, making the temporary Evolutionary Data Link modification permanent, and demoding the CONECT test aircraft. The 

committee understands that after the budget was released the 

Commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command asked that 

the decision to restructure CONECT be reconsidered. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to do so and to 

provide the congressional defense committees with a report assessing the available B–52 modernization options no later than 180 

days after the enactment of this Act. 

B–52 Strategic Radar Replacement 

The committee recognizes that the analysis of alternatives for the 

current B–52 Strategic Radar Replacement (SR2) program certified 

that replacement of the 30 year APQ–166 is the best option. The 

APQ–166 Radar is increasingly expensive to maintain. The Air 

Force justification for the cancellation of the SR2 program in the 

fiscal year 2012 budget request is noted as funding being needed 

for higher priorities. However, the recent B–52 Strategic Radar Replacement Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Final Report stated costeffectiveness issues with the Air Force proposal. Maintaining the 

current radar system is more expensive than replacing it with a 

modern, in production, radar system as determined by the Air 

Force’s Analysis of Alternatives. Therefore, the committee recommends pursuing the most cost-effective solution presented in the 

AOA. 

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the congressional defense committees a plan to continue the effort in replacing the 

aging radar on B–52 aircraft. 

Clarification of scope of requirements for periodic detention 

review of individuals detained at United States Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

Section 1023 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) requires the Secretary of Defense 

to issue procedures implementing the periodic review process required by Executive Order 13567 for individuals detained at United 

States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Department of 

Defense has requested legislation clarifying congressional intent 

that this provision does not require periodic review boards for 

Guantanamo detainees who have already been designated for 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
196 

transfer or conditional detention, or who have charges pending or 

a judgment of conviction. 

The committee concludes that such legislation is not needed. Section 1023(b)(3) requires the Executive branch to apply the periodic 

review process of Executive Order 13567 to any detainee who may 

be brought to Guantanamo Bay in the future, but does not change 

the scope of Executive Order 13567 as to which detainees at Guantanamo Bay as of the date of enactment of the provision are required to be provided periodic review boards in accordance with 

that process. The committee understands that under section 3 of 

the Executive Order, a periodic review board must be provided to 

any current Guantanamo detainee who has been: (1) designated for 

continued law of war detention; or (2) referred for prosecution (except for those detainees against whom charges are pending or a 

judgment of conviction has been entered). Section 1023(b)(3) does 

not change these requirements. 

Combat Network Communications Technology 

The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2013 for the Combat Network Communications Technology was significantly restructured, delaying the production and deployment from fiscal year 

2013 to fiscal year 2015. The committee is fully supportive of this 

important communications backbone to the B–52 modernization 

program noting that it should be moved forward if possible to having production and deployment to fiscal year 2014. 

Funds transfers between Department of Defense accounts 

The committee notes that the President’s budget request annually includes legislative provisions to authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to certain amounts of funds authorized each 

year for each account to unforeseen higher priorities. Because the 

legislation results in the transfers to be deemed as additional authorizations outside the normal congressional authorization process, certain restrictions are imposed on its use by both Congress 

and the Department of Defense through policy guidance to ensure 

the transfers are carried out consistent with congressional intent. 

The Department is expressly prohibited from preparing or forwarding to Congress a prior approval reprogramming action except 

for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and is determined to be necessary in the national interest. 

Despite these restrictions, the committee is concerned about the 

total amounts transferred among programs, much of which is not 

required to be counted against the General and Special Transfer 

Authorities granted by Congress each year. The Department is permitted to transfer funds between military personnel accounts, and 

has additional special transfer authorities for foreign currency fluctuations, intelligence programs, and certain operations and maintenance accounts. As a result, in fiscal year 2011 alone, the Department transferred nearly $27.0 billion among accounts, but only 

$11.1 billion or 40 percent of these transfers were approved 

through the congressional reprogramming process prior to transfer. 

In addition, the total transfer authority contained in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011 (PubVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00218 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
197 

lic Law 111–383) only totaled $8.0 billion, and the Department of 

Defense has used only $4.1 billion to date. 

The committee notes that the Department currently is authorized to transfer funding between accounts up to certain threshold 

amounts that do not require prior approval from Congress nor do 

they require the use of special transfer authorities. These below 

threshold reprogramming (BTR) amounts are limited to $10.0 million for each military personnel account, $15.0 million for operation 

and maintenance; $20.0 million for procurement; and $10.0 million 

for research, development, test, and evaluation. During Fiscal Year 

2011, the Department of Defense transferred over $7.0 billion, in 

1,629 budget lines using BTR authority and another $9.7 billion 

using other internal reprogramming authorities. All these transfers 

were approved by officials in the military services or defense agencies without any congressional review or oversight. 

In addition, in fiscal year 2011 the Department of Defense re- quested approval to transfer funds totaling over $1.0 billion in 

order to start new procurement and research, development, test 

and evaluation programs that were not previously authorized by 

Congress, even though the Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation entitled ‘‘Reprogramming of Appropriated 

Funds’’ states in regard to the new starts that ‘‘Congressional committees discourage the use of the reprogramming process to initiate 

programs.’’ The committee is aware that urgent operational requirements, particularly those supporting on-going contingency operations, may result in the need to initiate a new program without 

prior congressional authorization or outside the traditional budget 

cycle. Therefore, the committee continues to discourage the use of 

transfer authority to initiate programs unless the requirement satisfies a validated emerging or urgent operational warfighter need, 

is the result of extraordinary situations, and for which the followon funding is budgeted. 

The committee grants a certain degree of flexibility to the Department of Defense in order to manage federal taxpayer funds efficiently and effectively in response to changing conditions and 

emerging requirements. On the other hand, this same flexibility facilitates a certain degree of budget gamesmanship, as certain accounts, such as operations and maintenance and base operations 

support that are intended to satisfy ‘‘must-pay’’ bills, are historically underfunded in the President’s annual budget requests with 

the understanding that the Department will be able to transfer 

funds between accounts. This type of budget gamesmanship is a 

major reason why the Department is not able to produce annual financial statements that are auditable. It also facilitates the annual 

exercise of a rush to transfer funds at the end of the fiscal year to 

accounts for which contracts or task orders can be obligated quickly. 

The committee is concerned that, despite the efforts of the Department to rein in wasteful and unneeded spending, these internal reprogramming processes and year-end rushes do not allow for 

an objective assessment of the priority or urgency of the funding 

need. Instead, they encourage action to obligate all authorized 

funds before they expire or are returned to the General Treasury. 

The committee believes that in order for the Department to truly 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
198 

ensure efficient spending at every level of resource management, 

new standards of performance must be established for each resource manager that rewards the result of acquiring goods and 

services to meet validated requirements established for the fiscal 

year within amounts authorized for that account and then returning any unobligated balances back to the General Treasury in order 

to buy down the federal debt, as opposed to looking for other goods 

or services to purchase. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees within 90 days after enactment of this Act providing 

suggestions to increase the transparency and accountability of 

funds transfers that do not require the prior approval of Congress. 

The report should also include a description of policies, procedures, 

or guidance provided to each program manager in the Department 

to determine the urgency or priority of an unfunded requirement, 

and to establish a culture of fiscal frugality and efficiency that promotes the return of unobligated balances back to financial managers for the purchase of higher priority goods and services or a return of funds to the General Treasury. 

Government Accountability Office report on duplication, 

overlap and fragmentation in federal programs 

On February 28, 2012, the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) issued a report entitled, ‘‘Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance 

Revenue,’’ that identified 32 areas of duplication, overlap and fragmentation throughout the Federal Government, and 19 areas of potential cost-saving and revenue-enhancement opportunities in federal programs, agencies, offices and initiatives. This report identified 16 areas of duplication, overlap, or potential savings that relate to the programs and operations of the Department of Defense 

(DOD). 

In the current environment of fiscal austerity and constrained resources, DOD must take advantage of every opportunity to identify 

efficiencies and achieve savings in its programs and activities. For 

this reason, careful consideration of the areas of potential savings 

identified by the GAO report—such as electronic warfare, unmanned aircraft systems, counter-improvised explosive device efforts, defense language and culture training, stabilization and reconstruction operations, Air Force food service, defense headquarters, defense real property, military healthcare costs, and overseas defense posture—is imperative. 

The committee concludes that DOD should assess each area of 

duplication, overlap, or potential savings identified by GAO that relates to DOD programs and operations and, to the extent that it 

has not already done so, take appropriate steps to address any 

such areas for which DOD agrees with the GAO recommendations. 

For any areas as to which DOD concludes that the duplication, 

overlap, or potential savings identified by GAO are not valid, the 

committee directs the Secretary to provide the congressional defense committees with an explanation of the basis for this conclusion. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
199 

Government Accountability Office review of the Nuclear 

Command, Control, and Communications System 

The U.S. nuclear command, control, and communications system 

(NC3) includes the activities, processes, and procedures performed 

by appropriate military commanders and support personnel to 

allow for senior-level decisions on nuclear weapons employment. 

The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for directing a number of initiatives to improve the reliability of the NC3 

system. However, the committee is concerned that the Department’s efforts are being pursued in a piecemeal fashion rather than 

part of a coherent system architecture and investment strategy 

with consistent leadership. For example, a key Air Force modernization program that has been in development for a decade, the 

Family of Advanced Beyond Line-of-Sight Terminals (FAB–T) program, which is the base terminal for the Advanced Extremely High 

Frequency Satellite, has veered off track and it may take years 

longer than expected before any of the needed capability becomes 

part of the NC3 system, especially in the B–2 and B–52H fleet. 

This means that our strategic bombers, which can carry nuclear 

weapons, will not be able to use the very satellites designed for nuclear command and control. 

The committee directs that the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) to assess DOD’s efforts to sustain and improve the NC3 system. Specifically, the committee directs GAO to examine: (1) the 

DOD’s efforts and activities underway or planned to upgrade and 

modernize the Nation’s nuclear NC3 capabilities, including activities associated with cryptographic modernization; (2) the extent to 

which DOD’s modernization and upgrade efforts are being coordinated as part of an overarching NC3 architecture and investment 

strategy; (3) whether there are NC3 gaps, shortcomings, technical 

challenges, or funding issues that need to be addressed currently; 

(4) the factors that caused the FAB–T program to go off track and 

the Air Force’s plans to salvage the program, including how land 

and air platform integration challenges will be addressed; and (5) 

extent to which DOD has identified and addressed gaps or shortcomings in the NC3 system through its inspections, training, and 

exercise programs. 

Hazard assessments related to new construction of obstructions on military installations and operations 

Section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) required the Secretary of Defense to establish a systematic process and a comprehensive strategy for assessing and addressing military impacts 

of renewable energy projects and other energy projects with the objective of ensuring that the robust development of renewable energy sources and the expansion of the commercial electrical grid in 

the United States are conducted in a manner that minimize or 

mitigate any adverse impacts on military operations and readiness. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has implemented the requirement of section 358 by establishing a Siting Clearinghouse to serve 

as a focal point for DOD consideration of proposed energy projects. 

The Clearinghouse has developed a consistent process for review of 

such projects, including evaluation criteria, operational impact asVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
200 

sessment tools, and mitigation response teams. This process has 

enabled the Department to focus its attention on those projects 

that are likely to have adverse impacts on military missions and 

to conduct additional analysis needed to determine if mitigation is 

possible. 

The Clearinghouse has reviewed 249 renewable energy projects 

to date that were under consideration at the time section 358 was 

enacted, and has determined that 229 of them would have little or 

no impact to military missions. The remaining 20 have been assessed as potentially having an adverse impact on military test, 

readiness, and operational missions. While further study and negotiations with project developers are underway in consultation with 

appropriate federal agencies, no determination of an unacceptable 

risk to national security has yet been made with regard to any of 

these projects. 

The committee expects that any DOD hazard assessment under 

subsection (e) of section 358 will include an analysis of the electromagnetic interference that the proposed project would cause for the 

relevant military installation (including interference with militaryowned or military-operated air traffic control radar sites, navigation aids, and approach systems), as well as any other adverse impacts on military operations, safety, and readiness (including adverse effects on instrument or visual flight operations). In the event 

that a potential risk is identified, the hazard assessment should 

consider the feasibility of the full range of mitigation measures. 

Such mitigation measures could include modifications to the proposed project (including changes in size, location, or technology), 

upgrades or modifications to existing DOD systems or procedures, 

acquisition and fielding of new systems by DOD or other federal 

agencies, and modifications to military operations. 

The committee also expects the Secretary of Defense to give careful consideration to the recommendations of senior military officers 

with primary responsibility for the affected military installation 

and affected military operations in making any final determination 

of unacceptable risk. 

The committee concludes that section 358 requires a set of established criteria in order to ensure the risk assessments are objective, 

rational, and justifiable. The committee also notes that final routes 

and sites may change after a determination is made, due to ongoing environmental studies, changes in developer plans, and the assessment of alternatives as part of mitigation efforts. In such cases, 

the Clearinghouse should have processes in place to reopen the review, continue the analysis, and amend the determination if the review results in a change in the determination. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide to the congressional defense committees by December 1, 2012, a description of 

the processes and criteria used to make the determination whether 

or not an energy project poses an unacceptable risk to national security. 

Impacts of ‘‘Sequestration’’ on the Department of Defense 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is subject to automatic funding reductions known as ‘‘sequestration’’ of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
201 

$492.0 billion between 2013 and 2021 as required by section 251A 

of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 

(2 U.S.C. 901a). These reductions are in addition to reductions of 

$487.0 billion already being implemented by the Department of Defense. 

The leaders of the Department of Defense have consistently testified that automatic reductions would have a detrimental impact on 

the Department’s ability to maintain readiness. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that these reductions would ‘‘inflict severe 

damage to our national defense for generations’’ and Chief Staff of 

the Army, General Raymond Odierno, warned that the cuts would 

force the Army to separate an additional 100,000 soldiers. Sequestration will also have a detrimental effect on the industrial base 

that supports the Department of Defense. 

Therefore, the committee directs that the Secretary of Defense 

submit to the congressional defense committees no later than August 15, 2012 a detailed report on the impact of the sequestration 

of funds authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2013 for the 

Department of Defense. The report should include an assessment 

of the potential impact of sequestration on the readiness of the 

Armed Forces, on the ability of the Department to carry out the 

National Military Strategy, and any changes to the most recent 

Chairman’s Risk Assessment. 

The committee is also aware that automatically triggered cuts 

would disrupt programs, projects, and activities across the military 

departments and components, potentially causing the termination 

or restructuring of hundreds of contracts. Therefore, the report 

should include an estimate of the number and value of all contracts 

that will be terminated or re-scoped due to sequestration, including 

an estimate of the resulting costs. Finally, the report should include an estimate of the number of civilian, contract, and uniformed personnel whose employment would be terminated due to 

sequestration. 

The committee urges the administration and Congress to work 

together, beginning immediately, to develop and introduce in both 

Houses of Congress not later than September 15, 2012, a proposal 

to replace the automatically triggered, across-the-board reductions 

in fiscal year 2013 funding required by sequestration, in order to 

avoid the devastating consequences of continued inaction. 

Resiliency and survivability for nuclear air-launched cruise 

and 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 [Department of Defense] Nuclear Weapons Management concluded that, ‘‘The closure of the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
202 

WSA at one of the bomber bases was a significant mistake with a 

negative operational impact,’’ and that ‘‘[the closure] simplifies 

enemy targeting and creates more concentration of vulnerability for 

the B–52 bomber force.’’ In response, the Air Force requested and 

Congress appropriated $73.0 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. 

Roles of the Air Force Global Strike Command and Air Combat Command 

The Air Force Global Strike Command is a major command created in 2007 when the Air Force’s ability to manage its portion of 

the nuclear weapons enterprise came into question. That Command’s mission is to ‘‘Develop and provide combat-ready forces for 

nuclear deterrence and global strike operations that are safe, secure and effective to support the President of the United States 

and combatant commanders’’. The Command utilizes the fleet of B– 

2 and B–52 long-range heavy bombers in carrying out its mission. 

Air Combat Command also exercises some responsibilities for managing the B–2 and B–52 bomber fleets. It is not clear to the committee how the Air Force has apportioned responsibility for exercising authority, direction and control in regards to tasking and 

funding for the B–2 and B–52 training and operations between the 

Global Strike Command and the Air Combat Command. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide 

a report describing how these functions are apportioned between 

the Global Strike Command and Air Combat Command no later 

than January 31, 2013. 

Safety and security standards for Department of Defense 

hazardous materials transport 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

is responsible for the transportation of nearly 70,000 separate shipments of security sensitive material every year. Trucks carrying 

these shipments travel tens of millions of miles on highways across 

all 50 States. 

The Defense Transportation Regulation establishes standards for 

the safe movement of hazardous materials. The committee understands that an industry group has proposed that DOD adopt enhanced safety standards for hazardous materials. The committee 

does not prejudge the adequacy of existing safety standards, but 

believes that it is essential that DOD ensure that transportation 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
203 

safety standards are commensurate with safety risk posed by the 

categories of cargo that are transported. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

conduct an impartial analysis of its existing standards for the 

transportation of hazardous materials and submit that analysis to 

the congressional defense committees not later than 45 days after 

the date of enactment of this Act. The Secretary’s analysis should 

address past safety performance, number of transportation accidents and causes, accident rates, and standards used by DOD, the 

Department of Transportation, and other organizations and companies that transport similar hazardous cargo. 

The committee further directs the Department to implement 

such changes to existing regulations and standards (if any) as he 

determines to be needed on the basis of the review. 

Use of general purpose forces and special operations forces 

for security force assistance 

The committee notes that the guidance documents issued by the 

President and Department of Defense (DOD) have emphasized 

international security force assistance as an element of our broad 

security strategy captured in the National Security Strategy, Quadrennial Defense Review, National Strategy for Counterterrorism, 

and the recent Defense Strategic Guidance. Historically, special operations forces have conducted the majority of the DOD’s activities 

to train, equip, advise, and assist international security forces. 

However, the fundamental role of building partner nation capability and capacities and the limited availability of special operations forces (SOF) for this mission have required DOD to build the 

capabilities and capacities of its general purpose forces (GPF) to 

conduct security force assistance. 

The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM) has projected that the current high demand for SOF 

will continue and that a ‘‘steady state’’ of approximately 12,000 deployed SOF will be required to meet the future requirements of the 

geographic combatant commanders for security force assistance, 

counterterrorism, civil affairs, military information support, and 

other missions. At the same time, DOD and the military services 

are also taking steps to identify capability requirements, implementing new approaches to organizing units—including aligning 

certain GPF to specific regions, and adjusting training to enhance 

the ability of GPF to conduct security force assistance activities. 

The committee is aware of the Comptroller General’s previous 

work on challenges DOD faces in defining its concept for security 

force assistance and guiding combatant commander and service efforts to plan and conduct related activities, as well as its work on 

challenges USSOCOM has faced in providing sufficient numbers of 

trained personnel to meet the demand for increased deployments. 

Given that high demand for SOF is projected to continue for the 

foreseeable future, as well as DOD’s efforts to expand the capabilities of the GPF to perform security force assistance, the committee 

is concerned that the Department risks creating redundancies, investing funds, and utilizing personnel in creating duplicative capabilities when resources are increasingly limited and the size of the 

GPF is decreasing. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
204 

In order to better understand the Department’s plan for the security force assistance mission within both GPF and SOF, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a report to the congressional defense committees on its evaluation of DOD efforts in these areas, including the extent that DOD 

has delineated the roles and responsibilities of SOF and GPF; distinguished between the types of circumstances where the respective 

forces would be used to conduct security force assistance activities; 

and whether DOD has identified and prioritized the respective requirements and resource needs for building and sustaining the capabilities of both types of forces, and other matters the Comptroller 

General sees fit to include. 

Vacancies in critical Inspector General positions 

The committee notes with concern that a number of critical Inspector General positions in the Federal Government have been vacant for an extended period of time. The position of Department of 

Defense Inspector General has been vacant since the beginning of 

the year, without a successor being nominated. In the view of the 

committee, continuing vacancies among the Inspectors General undermines needed oversight of critical national security functions 

and operations. While Acting Inspectors General often do an admirable job, they are unlikely to have the clout and influence of Senate-confirmed officials. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to work with the President to identify and submit a highlyqualified nominee to be the Department of Defense Inspector General as soon as possible. 

Working partnerships with State and local law enforcement 

authorities 

The committee is aware of significant jurisdictional gaps and 

overlaps between Department of Defense (DOD) law enforcement 

authorities on military installations and civilian law enforcement 

authorities in areas surrounding military installations. For example, the Department has expressed concern about its lack of jurisdiction over a growing population of non-DOD affiliated civilians 

living in privatized housing on DOD installations. Similar issues 

can arise in the case of DOD-leased facilities off of DOD installations. 

The committee also recognizes that information collection and 

sharing among law enforcement agencies is a critical element of effective force protection for military installations inside the United 

States. For this reason, the committee encourages active participation by both DOD law enforcement authorities and local law enforcement authorities in areas surrounding military installations in 

ongoing information-sharing programs managed and operated by 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security. 

The committee concludes that DOD law enforcement authorities 

should actively work to develop working partnerships with law enforcement agencies in areas surrounding military installations, and 

to use such partnerships to address a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including force protection issues. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional deVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00226 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
205 

fense committees not later than 180 days after the enactment of 

this Act on steps that the Department has taken or plans to take 

to promote such partnerships. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(207) 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

Authority for transportation of family household pets of civilian personnel during evacuation of non-essential personnel (sec. 1101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 5725 of title 5, United States Code, to authorize the transport 

at government expense of family household pets of government employees during evacuations from permanent stations in foreign locations. 

Expansion of experimental personnel program for scientific 

and technical personnel at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (sec. 1102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1101(b)(1)(A) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) to authorize the appointment of not more than 60 employees to scientific 

and engineering positions in the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency (DARPA). The provision would not be construed as 

affecting any limitation on the numbers of personnel that may be 

employed at DARPA overall. 

One-year extension of discretionary authority to grant allowances, benefits, and gratuities to personnel on official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

temporary discretionary authority to federal agencies to grant allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to those provided to 

members of the foreign service to an agency’s civilian employees on 

official duty in a combat zone. This authority would expire at the 

end of fiscal year 2014. 

Item of Special Interest 

Department of Defense strategic workforce plan 

Section 115b of title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of Defense to prepare a strategic workforce plan to shape 

and improve the civilian employee workforce of the Department of 

Defense (DOD) on a biannual basis. The strategic workforce plan 

is required to include an assessment of the critical skills and competencies that will be needed to support national security requirements and effectively manage the Department and the appropriate 

mix of military, civilian, and contractor personnel capabilities needed to ensure the availability of such skills and capabilities. 

The most recent strategic workforce plan, submitted to the committee in March 2012, includes a comprehensive assessment of 24 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
208 

mission critical occupations and 4 cross-cutting mission critical 

functions in the DOD civilian workforce. The plan includes specific 

recruitment, retention, and development strategies to address identified gaps in these occupations and functions. While not yet fully 

compliant with the requirements of section 115b, the March 2012 

strategic workforce plan is a significant improvement over earlier 

plans. 

At the same time, the plan is a massive document that DOD assesses is too big and complex to be a practical guide for workforce 

management. Because of deficiencies in the DOD inventory of contract services required by section 2330a of title 10, United States 

Code, the plan does not yet include meaningful data on the total 

workforce (including military, civilian, and contractor employees) 

that can be used to assess the appropriate workforce mix needed 

to perform critical functions. 

Moreover, the plan was submitted a year late and was based on 

forecasts completed in December 2010—before the Secretary announced efficiencies initiatives, including a freeze on the civilian 

workforce at fiscal year 2010 levels. It is not clear to what extent, 

if any, the military departments and defense agencies took the 

strategic workforce plan, and the critical capabilities and capabilities gaps identified in the plan, into account as they worked to implement these efficiencies. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to review the requirements for the strategic 

workforce plan and the process used to develop and implement the 

plan and to identify steps, including any recommended legislative 

changes, that may be needed to streamline the planning process, 

enhance the utility of the plan, and ensure that it is implemented 

by the military departments and defense agencies in an operationally effective manner. The committee directs the Under Secretary 

to report the findings and recommendations of this review to the 

congressional defense committees by no later than 60 days after 

the date of the enactment of this Act. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(209) 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN 

NATIONS 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training 

Extension of authority to build the capacity of foreign military forces and modification of notice in connection 

with initiation of activities (sec. 1201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through September 30, 2014, the authority under section 1206 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163; 119 Stat. 3456), as amended, for the Secretary of 

Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to conduct 

a program to build the capacity of foreign military forces. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to provide, as 

part of the 15-day prior notification of the initiation of a project 

under this authority, additional information on assistance provided 

during the 3 preceding fiscal years to the country in which the 

project is to be initiated. The committee believes the provision of 

this additional information in the notification will facilitate congressional oversight of the train and equip program. 

Extension of authority for non-reciprocal exchange of defense personnel between the United States and foreign 

countries (sec. 1202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 5 

fiscal years the authority for the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

accept, on a non-reciprocal basis, defense personnel of the defense 

ministry of an ally or friendly foreign government. 

The committee notes that DOD has used this authority judiciously and only recently expanded its use to include countries outside of our traditional partners. The committee urges the Department to continue to use this authority and to consider using it to 

enhance—consistent with the new Defense Strategic Guidance— 

our partnerships in the Middle East and Asia Pacific. 

Authority to build the capacity of certain counterterrorism 

forces in Yemen and East Africa (sec. 1203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize for 

2 fiscal years the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the 

Secretary of State, to provide training, equipment, supplies, and 

minor military construction to: (1) the Yemen Ministry of Interior 

(MOI) Counterterrorism Unit (CTU); (2) the national military 

forces, counterterrorism forces, security agencies that serve a similar defense function, and border security forces of Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Kenya; and (3) the national military forces of nations participating in the African Union Mission in Somalia; for the purpose 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
210 

of conducting counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda in the 

Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, and al Qaeda affiliates and al 

Shabaab in East Africa. The provision permits the Secretary of Defense to expend not more than $75.0 million in support of the 

Yemen MOI CTU, and not more than $75.0 million in support of 

the named forces conducting counterterrorism operations in East 

Africa. The provision requires that any support pursuant to this 

section must be provided in a manner that promotes the observance of and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms 

and for legitimate civilian authority in the country receiving such 

assistance. 

The committee notes that this authority is similar to section 

1207(n) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 (Public Law 112–81) and that the Department requested an 

extension of that authority. The committee is supportive of the Department’s request and associated efforts to better enable counterterrorism forces in East Africa and Yemen, but views this authority 

as a means to continue providing support to these forces until the 

Global Security Contingency Fund and its associated processes are 

fully operational. Further, the committee chose to create this authority as a standalone authority to correct a number of technical 

errors in section 1207(n) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2012. 

The committee believes these authorities will be critical to supporting counterterrorism efforts by partner nations against al 

Qaeda and al Shabaab in the coming 2 fiscal years as they work 

to consolidate and build upon recent gains in Somalia and prevent 

al Qaeda from establishing a safe haven in Yemen as the political 

process in Yemen continues to unfold. 

Limitation on availability of funds for State Partnership 

Program (sec. 1204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense from obligating or expending more than 50 

percent of the fiscal year 2013 funds for the State Partnership Program until the final regulations required pursuant to section 1210 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84) are completed and the necessary regulatory 

adjustments have been completed to ensure compliance of the program with the Antideficiency Act (Public Law 97–258). 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and 

Pakistan 

Commanders’ Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan 

(sec. 1211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make up to 

$200.0 million in Department of Defense funds available during fiscal year 2013 for the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program 

(CERP) under section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81; 125 Stat. 1619). As 

explained elsewhere in this report, this is $200.0 million less than 

the $400.0 million requested in the budget request. CERP enables 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
211 

commanders in Afghanistan to fund humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects that directly benefit the Afghan people. 

Extension of authority to support operations and activities 

of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority of section 1215 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81; 125 Stat. 

1631; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) for the Secretary of Defense to support 

the operations and activities of the Office of Security Cooperation 

in Iraq and security assistance teams, including life support, transportation and personal security, and construction and renovation of 

facilities. The provision would limit the total amount of funds available for these purposes to $508.0 million. 

One-year extension and modification of authority to use 

funds for reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 

1213) 

The committee recommends a provision that extends for 1 year 

the authority in section 1216 of the Ike Skelton National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383; 124 

Stat. 4392), as amended, to use Department of Defense funds to 

support a program for the reintegration of former insurgent fighters into Afghan society. The provision would authorize the use of 

up to $35.0 million for these purposes. 

One-year extension and modification of authority for program to develop and carry out infrastructure projects in 

Afghanistan (sec. 1214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for fiscal year 2013 the authority under section 1217 of the Ike Skelton 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 

Law 111–383) for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Program (AIP) to 

develop and carry out infrastructure programs in Afghanistan that 

support the counterinsurgency campaign. Funding for the AIP is 

provided through a fund in the U.S. Treasury known as the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund. The provision would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to use up to $350.0 million in fiscal year 2013 

for these purposes. The provision would also restrict the availability of funds authorized during fiscal year 2013 for the AIP to 

no more than 50 percent of the authorized amount until the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a plan for the allocation and 

use of funds under the program, including information on how each 

project to be initiated under the program would be sustained following its completion. 

The committee notes that a significant portion of the funds available to the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund in fiscal years 2011 

and 2012 have supported efforts by the Department of Defense and 

the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to rebuild 

and improve the delivery of electricity to Kandahar and southern 

Afghanistan. During fiscal year 2013, over $100.0 million of funds 

authorized for this program will support Kandahar electrification. 

The committee recognizes this effort as a priority for the program. 

At the same time, the committee continues to have concerns about 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
212 

the sustainability of large-scale infrastructure projects initiated by 

the Department of Defense under the AIP. The committee believes 

that as the security, political, and economic transition progresses 

in Afghanistan, responsibility within the U.S. Government (USG) 

for any large-scale infrastructure projects in Afghanistan should 

shift away from the Department of Defense to USG civilian agencies, particularly the Department of State and USAID. 

Extension of Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (sec. 1215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for fiscal year 2013 the authorities of section 1224 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84; 

123 Stat. 2521), as amended, regarding the use of the Pakistan 

Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) for building the capabilities of the 

Pakistan security forces. The provision would also extend for 1 year 

the provisions of section 1220 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81; 125 Stat. 1633) 

that restrict the availability of PCF funding to no more than 40 

percent of amounts appropriated or transferred to the PCF during 

fiscal year 2013 until the Secretary of Defense submits a report to 

Congress on a strategy and metrics for use of the PCF and for enhancing Pakistan’s efforts to counter improvised explosive devices. 

The committee notes that this Act does not authorize any additional funds for the PCF during fiscal year 2013. Accordingly, any 

additional funds for the PCF during fiscal year 2013 would have 

to be transferred to the PCF from amounts appropriated to the Department of State’s Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund 

(PCCF). The committee further notes that section 7046(c)(1) of the 

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 

Appropriations Act, 2012, contained in Division I of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112–74) restricts the 

availability of funds under the PCCF until the Secretary of State 

makes certain certifications to Congress regarding Pakistan, including that Pakistan is: (i) cooperating with the United States in 

counterterrorism efforts against the Haqqani Network, the Quetta 

Shura Taliban, Lashkar e-Tayyiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, al Qaeda, 

and other domestic and foreign terrorist organizations, including 

taking steps to end support for such groups and prevent them from 

basing and operating in Pakistan and carrying out cross border attacks into neighboring countries; (ii) not supporting terrorist activities against United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, and 

that Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies are not intervening extra-judicially into political and judicial processes in Pakistan; and (iii) dismantling improvised explosive device (IED) networks and interdicting precursor chemicals used in the manufacture of IEDs. The Secretary of State may waive the certification requirement if doing so is in U.S. national security interests. In the 

event that the provisions of section 7046(c)(1) of Public Law 112– 

74 are not extended for fiscal year 2013 with respect to the PCCF, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Secretary of State, to provide the certification required by 

section 7046(c)(1)(A) of Public Law 112–74 prior to using any PCF 

funds from amounts transferred to the PCF from the PCCF during 

fiscal year 2013. The Secretary of Defense may waive this requireVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00234 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
213 

ment if the Secretary determines that doing so is in the national 

security interests of the United States. 

Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement 

of certain coalition nations for support provided to 

United States military operations (sec. 1216) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority of section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 

393), as amended, for the use of Department of Defense (DOD) 

funds (‘‘Coalition Support Funds’’) to reimburse key nations for 

logistical and military support provided to or in connection with 

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), or to use such funds to assist 

key nations by providing specialized training, or loaning specialized 

equipment, in connection with OEF. The provision would limit the 

aggregate amount of Coalition Support Funds that could be provided during fiscal year 2013 to $1.75 billion, except that reimbursements made to Pakistan for support provided prior to May 1, 

2011, using Coalition Support Funds authorized and appropriated 

during a fiscal year prior to fiscal year 2013, would not count 

against that limitation. 

The provision would also prohibit any reimbursements to Pakistan for claims of support provided during the period when the 

ground lines of supply through Pakistan to Afghanistan were 

closed to the transshipment of equipment and supplies needed to 

support U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense, prior 

to providing any reimbursement to Pakistan using Coalition Support Funds during fiscal year 2013, to certify to the congressional 

defense committees that: Pakistan has opened and is maintaining 

security along the ground lines of supply through Pakistan to Afghanistan; Pakistan is not supporting or providing safe haven to 

militant extremist groups, including the Haqqani Network and the 

Afghan Taliban Quetta Shura, that are located in Pakistan and 

that conduct cross-border attacks against U.S., coalition, and Afghan forces; Pakistan is committed to a strategy to counter improvised explosive devices (IED), including through the regulation of 

explosive materials used in IEDs; and that Pakistan is demonstrably cooperating with U.S. counterterrorism efforts, including by 

not detaining, prosecuting, or imprisoning Pakistani citizens as a 

result of their cooperation with U.S. counterterrorism efforts. In 

this regard, the Committee is particularly concerned and outraged 

by the case of Dr. Shakil Afridi, who was sentenced to 33 years in 

prison in connection with assistance he provided to U.S. efforts to 

locate Osama Bin Laden. The Secretary may waive this certification requirement if doing so would be in the national security interests of the United States. 

Extension and modification of logistical support for coalition forces supporting certain United States military operations (sec. 1217) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for fiscal year 2013 the authority provided in section 1234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
214 

111–181; 122 Stat. 394), as most recently amended by section 1211 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

(Public Law 112–81; 125 Stat. 1629), to provide logistical support 

to coalition forces. The provision would also amend that section to 

clarify that for fiscal year 2013 logistical support is authorized for 

coalition forces supporting operations in Afghanistan only, and not 

Afghanistan and Iraq as in previous years. 

Strategy for supporting the achievement of a secure presidential election in Afghanistan in 2014 (sec. 1218) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 

to develop a strategy to support the Government of Afghanistan in 

its efforts to ensure the security of its presidential election in 2014. 

The strategy would include support to the Government of Afghanistan for: (1) training the Afghan security forces to provide security 

at polling stations and to protect election materials, election workers, and officials; (2) recruiting and training female Afghan security 

personnel to provide equitable access to polls for Afghan women 

and to secure polling stations and other election-related locations; 

and (3) securing the freedom of movement and communication for 

candidates before and during the election. 

Independent assessment of the Afghan National Security 

Forces (sec. 1219) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide for the conduct of a detailed independent assessment of the strength, force structure, force posture, 

and capabilities required to enable the Afghan National Security 

Forces to provide security for their own country so as to prevent 

Afghanistan from ever again becoming a safe haven for terrorists 

that threaten Afghanistan, the region, and the world. As determined by the Secretary, the assessment would be conducted by either a federally-funded research and development center or an 

independent, non-governmental institute with expertise in national 

security and military affairs. The provision would require that the 

assessment be completed and reported to the Secretary and the 

congressional defense committees by no later than 1 year after the 

date of enactment of this Act. 

Report on Afghanistan Peace and Reintegration Program 

(sec. 1220) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and 

the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives 

a report on the Afghanistan Peace and Reconciliation Program 

(APRP). The report would be required within 120 days of the date 

of enactment of this Act. 

The committee notes that Department of Defense funds are authorized to be available during fiscal year 2013 to support the activities of the APRP to reintegrate former insurgents into Afghan 

society. The APRP has had notable success in formally reintegrating around 4,000 fighters who are willing to lay down their 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
215 

weapons and support the Afghan constitution. The APRP plays an 

important role in our political strategy in Afghanistan and the committee believes that a close assessment of the effectiveness of the 

APRP’s activities in achieving the program’s goals and objectives 

would help improve that strategy. 

Subtitle C—Reports 

Review and reports on Department of Defense efforts to 

build the capacity of and partner with foreign security 

forces (sec. 1231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Defense Policy Board to conduct a review, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, of Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to build 

the capacity of, or partner with, foreign security forces in support 

of national defense and security strategies. The Secretary of Defense would be required to report to the congressional defense committees on the results of the review. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 120 

days after the completion of the Defense Policy Board review, a report setting forth strategic guidance for DOD efforts to build the 

capacity of, and partner with, foreign military forces in support of 

national defense and security strategies. 

The committee notes that the DOD 2010 Quadrennial Defense 

Review identified building partner capacity and partnership as one 

of the Department’s core missions. Over the last several years, 

DOD authorities and programs involved in building partner capacity and partnership have multiplied significantly. These include, 

but are not limited to: the ‘‘Section 1206’’ global train and equip 

program; the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund; the Pakistan 

Counterinsurgency Fund; targeted authorities for building capacity 

in Yemen and East Africa; the Global Security Contingency Fund; 

the State Partnership Program; the Warsaw Initiative Fund; the 

Ministry of Defense Advisors program; and the DOD counternarcotics authorities. However, the Department has yet to clearly 

define the strategic ends toward which its efforts to build partner 

capacity and partner with foreign forces are directed, and how to 

prioritize among these efforts. The committee believes it is critical, 

particularly in a resource-constrained environment, that DOD provide clear guidance on the objectives and priorities of these efforts 

to ensure that these activities directly advance U.S. national defense and security interests and can be assessed for their effectiveness in achieving U.S. strategic goals. 

Additional elements in annual report on military and security developments involving the People’s Republic of 

China (sec. 1232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1202 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2000 (Public Law 106–65), as amended, by requiring the Secretary 

of Defense to include in the Annual Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China, certain 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
216 

additional information relating to cyberwarfare, space and nuclear 

activities, maritime activities, and China’s foreign military transactions and military-to-military relationships. Although some of 

this information has been included in past iterations of the annual 

report, the provision would codify the requirement and provide 

more specificity regarding the details which the committee would 

like to have included in future reports. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Improved administration of the American, British, Canadian, and Australian Armies’ Program (sec. 1241) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, to enter into agreements relating to U.S. participation in the 

land-force program known as the American, British, Canadian, and 

Australian (ABCA) Armies’ Program. The ABCA Armies’ Program 

is a multilateral organization for the purposes of promoting interoperability among the armies and Marine Corps of the participating countries. In addition to the United States, the countries 

participating in the program are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, 

and the United Kingdom. The provision would permit the negotiation of agreements to allow for the equitable sharing of costs associated with the ABCA Armies’ Program, including administrative 

costs and the cost of any monetary claims resulting from participation in the program. The provision would allow the Department of 

Defense (DOD) to accept contributions to cover these costs from the 

participating nations and deposit those amounts into DOD accounts. The authority provided under this section would sunset at 

the end of 5 years. 

United States participation in Headquarters Eurocorps (sec. 

1242) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, the authority to allow members of the armed forces to participate as members of the staff of Headquarters Eurocorps, one of 

seven ‘‘Rapid Deployable Corps’’ associated with the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO). Participation on this staff by U.S. 

Armed Forces members would only be authorized to support the 

NATO activities of that corps. The provision would limit United 

States participation on the staff of Headquarters Eurocorps to two 

service members until the Secretary of Defense submits a report to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives on the plans, benefits, and costs of such participation. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense is 

seeking to negotiate the arrangements for the United States to join 

Headquarters Eurocorps as a NATO associated nation. United 

States European Command (EUCOM) has indicated that participation in Headquarters Eurocorps would be part of its overall plans 

for participation in the NATO force structure, which also includes 

U.S participation in the other NATO Rapid Deployable Corps. 

While generally supportive of U.S. participation within the NATO 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
217 

force and command structures, the committee believes it requires 

more information on the costs and benefits of U.S. participation in 

the Headquarters Eurocorps before the Department assigns a number of personnel greater than the two members of the armed forces 

specified under this provision to participate in the Headquarters 

Eurocorps. 

Department of Defense participation in European program 

on multilateral exchange of air transportation and air 

refueling services (sec. 1243) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, to enter into multilateral written agreements to provide for 

U.S. participation in the Air Transport, Air-to-Air Refueling and 

other Exchanges of Services (‘‘ATARES’’) program of the Movement 

Coordination Centre Europe. The ATARES program provides a 

multilateral framework among certain European countries for the 

multilateral exchange of air transportation and air refueling services. The program would allow for the exchange or transfer of these 

services on a reimbursable basis or by replacement in kind. The 

provision would limit the balance of executed flight hours, whether 

as credits or debits, that the United States can accumulate under 

the ATARES program to no more than 500 hours, of which the balance of executed flight hours for air refueling may not exceed 200 

hours. The provision would also require the Comptroller General to 

submit to the congressional defense committees within 1 year a report assessing the ATARES program. 

The committee recognizes the value of multilateral cooperation in 

military transportation services and believes the ATARES program 

may offer opportunities for efficiencies and increased availability of 

additional transportation capacity to meet U.S. requirements. The 

committee would authorize U.S. participation in the ATARES program as a 5-year pilot program and intends to monitor closely the 

implementation of the program, including through the annual reports required under this provision. 

Authority to establish program to provide assistance to foreign civilians for harm incident to combat operations of 

the armed forces in foreign countries (sec. 1244) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a program, under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, to enable military commanders at their discretion to provide assistance to foreign civilians who are harmed incident to U.S. combat operations overseas. 

The committee notes that in armed conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, the Department of Defense has drawn on a 

number of authorities, including authority to make solatia payments and condolence payments under the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program, to provide assistance to civilians who 

have suffered damage, injury or death incident to U.S. combat operations, including for purposes of winning the hearts and minds 

of the local population, promoting stability, and enhancing the safety of U.S. personnel. Establishment of a program under this section, in coordination with programs administered by the U.S. AgenVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00239 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
218 

cy for International Development and Department of State, could 

help to promote friendly relations with civilian populations in combat zones and as a result contribute to the successful completion 

of the U.S. military mission in a future conflict. 

Limitation on availability of funds for certain capital 

projects in connection with overseas contingency operations (sec. 1245) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

Department of Defense funds may not be obligated for certain large 

capital projects overseas for an overseas contingency operation 

until the Secretary of Defense carries out a detailed assessment of 

the sustainability and necessity of the project. Capital projects covered by this section would be: (1) any project for building the capability of indigenous security forces with an estimated value over 

$10.0 million; or any other project for the direct benefit of the host 

country with an estimated value over $2.0 million. The provision 

would also require quarterly reports to Congress on each assessment conducted under this section. The Secretary of Defense may 

waive the limitation of this section to initiate a project if doing so 

would be in the U.S. national security interests, but the assessment required under this section would have to be completed and 

reported to Congress not later than 180 days after issuance of the 

waiver. 

Items of Special Interest 

Insider threat 

Since 2007, a number of U.S., international coalition, and Afghan 

personnel have been killed or wounded in attacks by Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) personnel or ANSF impersonators. 

Although such attacks are not indicative of the quality and dedication of the overwhelming majority of ANSF personnel who serve 

alongside coalition forces with honor and distinction, they raise 

concerns about the sufficiency of the procedures used to screen, vet, 

and monitor ANSF personnel, as well as whether there is a need 

for additional training of coalition service members on how to identify insider threats and on appropriate operational procedures 

while working with ANSF units. 

The committee supports ongoing efforts to reduce the risk of insider threat-related attacks on coalition and Afghan forces, including the use of preadmission screening procedures for ANSF candidates and plans to increase the number of counter-intelligence 

personnel within the ANSF. However, recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports indicate that there remain opportunities to eliminate gaps in the screening, vetting, and monitoring 

processes. Improvements, such as sharing data collected by coalition and ANSF forces, expanding counterintelligence capabilities, 

and improving the process by which elders recommend ANSF candidates will require cooperation from the Government of Afghanistan. 

As such, the committee directs the Department to submit a report, with a classified annex if necessary, not later than 180 days 

after enactment of this Act, that assesses and categorizes the naVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
219 

ture of insider attacks, and describes all measures taken to protect 

military and civilian personnel from future insider attacks. The report should include a description of specific programs included in 

pre-deployment training for civilian and military personnel of all 

ranks on identifying and reducing insider threats, actions taken by 

the Government of Afghanistan to prevent such attacks, and the 

status of negotiations with the Government of Afghanistan to address the issues raised by GAO. 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization capabilities and burdensharing 

The committee recognizes the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) renewed focus on burden-sharing, interoperability, 

and the ‘‘Smart Defense’’ initiative. The committee welcomes these 

efforts and supports the ongoing work by NATO allies to pool and 

share resources to get more out of members’ national defense budgets and notes that this approach could be enhanced by replicating 

successful NATO programs such as the Baltic Air Policing initiative and the Strategic Airlift Capability program. The committee 

also notes that the defense spending burden within the NATO alliance has fallen predominantly on the United States. According to 

NATO statistics, only 3 of 28 member countries met the requirement of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense in 2011. In addition, the U.S. share of total defense spending 

by NATO members increased from 57 percent to 69 percent between 2001 and 2011. The committee recognizes that Europe is 

dealing with significant budget issues, but urges NATO members 

to work to ensure that national defense spending levels are sufficient and defense spending decisions are coordinated to the extent 

possible so as to address the Alliance’s shared security requirements. 

Review of United States-Egypt military-to-military relations 

The committee notes the importance of maintaining and 

strengthening the close partnership between the United States 

Armed Forces and the Egyptian Armed Forces. This long-standing 

relationship has helped to advance U.S. national security interests, 

such as counterterrorism and intelligence cooperation in the Middle 

East, the safeguarding of the Camp David Accords, the movement 

of U.S. forces in the region and through the Suez Canal, and support for internal stability during and after the departure of former 

President Hosni Mubarak. To enhance this military-to-military relationship, the U.S. Congress has authorized and appropriated approximately $1.3 billion in security assistance to the Egyptian military annually for more than 3 decades. 

The Egyptian revolution of 2011 has begun a transition to a 

democratically-elected, civilian government, which is expected to 

culminate with the transfer of executive authority from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to new civilian leaders in the 

coming months. Egypt will continue to experience political changes 

in the coming years, including in civil-military relations. Egypt’s 

security will also be impacted by new and evolving developments 

stemming from growing instability in the Sinai region, domestic 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
220 

and foreign terrorist groups, unsecured border crossings, and the 

reform of security forces to ensure domestic law and order. 

The committee notes that the U.S.-Egypt military-to-military relationship must account for the new challenges facing Egypt’s 

newly-elected civilian government. Furthermore, the committee believes it is important for the United States to engage with the new 

Egyptian president and parliament as they review the military cooperation and security assistance relationship with the United 

States, including how to define their current national security priorities, what kinds of U.S. security assistance they wish to request, 

and what balance they desire between military and non-military 

assistance. 

In light of Egypt’s political and security challenges, the committee believes the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State 

should consult with Egypt’s civilian and military leaders as part of 

a review of U.S. military-to-military engagement with Egypt. The 

goal of this review should be: (1) to ensure that U.S. military assistance, engagement, and arms sales are integrated into a strategy 

that responds to Egypt’s current security challenges; (2) to assist 

the Egyptian government and military in aligning their acquisition 

of defense capabilities with their strategic requirements and security challenges; and (3) to reinforce the democratic principle of civilian control of the military in Egypt. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report periodically to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, as 

well as the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on the findings of this review. 

Special operations security force assistance activities 

The committee notes that the defense strategic guidance titled ‘‘Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense’’ states ‘‘Whenever possible, we will develop innovative, lowcost, and small footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives, relying on exercises, rotational presence, and advisory capabilities.’’ The committee believes that U.S. Special Operations 

Forces, because of their combat experience, ability to operate independently, and unique cultural and language expertise, are well 

suited to implement this mandate. 

The committee is aware of concerns from the Commander of U.S. 

Special Operations Command and the commanders of the theater 

special operations commands that the bureaucratic processes associated with the Department of Defense’s (DOD) security force assistance authorities may, in some cases, hamper the efforts of special operations forces to remain engaged persistently with partner 

nation security forces. The committee recognizes that such persistent engagement is important to building the capacity of and establishing an enduring relationship with special operations and 

other security forces in priority countries. 

The committee notes that Congress has made efforts in recent 

years to provide more flexible and responsive authorities to conduct 

security force assistance activities. The committee encourages DOD 

to make more effective use of existing authorities, including the 

Global Security Contingency Fund, ‘‘section 1206’’ global train and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
221 

equip authority, and DOD counternarcotics authorities, to better 

support the security force assistance activities of special operations 

forces under the command of the theater special operations commands. 

Furthermore, the committee notes that section 1203 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 

112–81) required the Secretary of Defense to provide a report due 

no later than 90 days after the enactment of that Act outlining the 

authorities that may be necessary for U.S. Special Operations 

Forces to adequately conduct counterterrorism, unconventional 

warfare, and irregular warfare in the future. That report has not 

been delivered to the committee. Additionally, elsewhere in this Act 

and accompanying report, the committee requires a report by the 

Comptroller General of the United States on the roles of general 

purpose and special operations forces in conducting security force 

assistance and a review by the Defense Policy Board on DOD efforts to build partnership capacity and partnership initiatives. The 

committee looks forward to the results of these reviews to guide future legislative or policy initiatives with respect to security force 

assistance activities. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(223) 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT 

REDUCTION 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs 

and funds (sec. 1301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would define the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds as 

authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill, and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 fiscal years. 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $519.2 million, the amount of the budget request, for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. This provision would also 

authorize specific amounts for each CTR program element, require 

notification to Congress 30 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2013 funds for a purpose other than 

a purpose listed in the provision, and require notification to Congress 15 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2013 funds in excess of the specific amount authorized for each CTR program element. 

Item of Special Interest 

Metrics for Cooperative Threat Reduction 

Section 1308 of Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) requires the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program to submit an annual report 

to Congress outlining a 5 year plan for the program. Section 

1304(c)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–84) required the National Academies of Science to submit a report reviewing the metrics of the CTR Program. The report, 

‘‘Improving Metrics for the Department of Defense Cooperative 

Threat Reduction Program’’, issued January 25, 2012, made a number of recommendations. The principal recommendation is that ‘‘the 

DOD should include a concise statement of its objectives and how 

the program is intended to reduce threat or risk.’’ The committee 

understands in response to the National Academies Report that the 

Department will brief Congress the summer of 2012 on revised 

metrics that are ‘‘program-specific and linked directly to overall 

CTR Program goals and objectives’’. 

The committee directs the Department of Defense to include in 

its annual CTR report to Congress, a concise section on the revised 

program metrics the Department has developed and an easy to understand chart showing their progress in achieving the metrics. 

The committee also directs the Department to include in the annual CTR program report what will happen to a particular proVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00245 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
224 

gram once the metrics are achieved considering the following three 

options: (1) will the Department continue to sustain the program 

and if so what is the estimated cost over 5 years, (2) will the Department move the program in sustainment phase to the host government or another U.S. Government Agency, or (3) close out the 

program with no additional funding. The goal is to give clear resolution of the program once the metrics are achieved. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(225) 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Programs 

Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds at the levels 

identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund at the levels 

identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Chemical agents and munitions destruction, defense (sec. 

1404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for chemical agents and munitions destruction, defense, at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this 

Act. 

Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-wide 

(sec. 1405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, defense-wide, at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of 

this Act. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1406) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 4501 of division 

D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile 

Release of materials needed for national defense purposes 

from the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpile (sec. 

1411) 

The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the Department of Defense, which would authorize the President to deleVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
226 

gate release authority of the National Defense Stockpile to the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

Subtitle C—Chemical Demilitarization Matters 

Supplemental chemical agent and munitions destruction 

technologies at Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, and 

Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky (sec. 1421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to consider using technologies to supplement 

the neutralization destruction of the stockpile of lethal chemical 

agents and munitions at Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, and 

Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky. The provision would authorize 

the Secretary to consider explosive destruction technologies and 

any technologies developed for treatment and disposal of agent or 

energetic hydrolysates, if problems with the current on-site treatment of hydrolysates are encountered. The provision would also repeal an older provision of law that restricted the consideration of 

supplemental technologies at Pueblo Chemical Depot. 

Both the Pueblo and Blue Grass depots contain a limited number 

of chemical munitions that will be problematic and unsafe for the 

selected neutralization technology at each plant, including leaking 

munitions, reject munitions, and explosive components. By augmenting the neutralization technology at each plant with explosive 

destruction technologies, the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program would be able to destroy these problematic munitions safely and in a manner that could also save time 

and money. 

The committee notes that the ACWA program is currently constructing the Pueblo and Blue Grass chemical agent destruction 

plants, the last two facilities of the U.S. chemical weapons destruction program. The United States is obligated under the Chemical 

Weapons Convention to destroy its entire stockpile of chemical 

weapons by the extended treaty deadline of April 29, 2012. However, technical, cost and schedule issues have prevented the Pueblo 

and Blue Grass facilities from being built and operational in time 

to meet the treaty deadline. The committee notes that the United 

States has completed the destruction of some 90 percent of its 

stockpile of chemical weapons prior to the treaty deadline, and is 

proceeding with the ACWA sites as rapidly as is consistent with 

the requirements of law, including requirements to protect public 

health and safety. 

The committee observes that the ACWA program experienced a 

Nunn-McCurdy cost breach in 2011, and the Department of Defense has recently issued a new cost and schedule estimate for the 

program. If the two facilities are able to use explosive destruction 

technologies, it would avoid the significant risks that would arise 

from processing unsafe munitions through each plant, and help reduce the overall cost and schedule for completing destruction of 

their chemical munitions. 

In order to use such technologies, the ACWA program would first 

have to complete an Environmental Assessment for each site, including public review and comment, subject to the requirements of 

the National Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91–190). The 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
227 

committee understands that the ACWA program is undertaking 

such an assessment for Pueblo, and plans to do the same at Blue 

Grass in the future. The committee also understands that the 

ACWA program has engaged the Citizens’ Advisory Commissions 

at Pueblo and Blue Grass to inform them and obtain their input 

on issues related to explosive destruction technologies, and other 

technologies developed for treatment and disposal of hydrolysates, 

if problems with current on-site treatment of hydrolysates are encountered. The committee directs the Department to ensure that 

the Citizens’ Advisory Commissions are kept fully informed and engaged on these issues as they move forward, and expects the Department to continue keeping Congress properly informed. The 

committee also urges the Department to seek opportunities to complete the destruction of all chemical agents and munitions at Pueblo and Blue Grass as close to the Chemical Weapons Convention 

deadline as possible, and as close to the additional December 31, 

2017, deadline established by Congress, consistent with the requirements of law governing the chemical weapons destruction program. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1431) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$67.6 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 from the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of 

the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 

Additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support 

Teams (sec. 1432) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize, 

retroactively, the Secretary of Defense to have established two additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMDCST) beyond the 55 previously authorized in law, and would prohibit the establishment of additional WMD-CSTs unless the Secretary of Defense requests the authority to establish such teams 

and their establishment is specifically authorized by law. The provision would also require the Secretary to submit a report on 

WMD-CSTs. 

The committee notes that section 1403 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 

107–314), authorized a total of 55 WMD-CSTs, with a requirement 

for at least 1 team in each State and territory. The Department of 

Defense established the 55 WMD-CSTs and certified each one, as 

required in section 12310(c)(5) of title 10, United States Code. 

Section 1082 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) required the Secretary of Defense 

to establish an advisory panel to carry out an assessment of the capabilities of the Department of Defense to provide support to civil 

authorities in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive event. 

Section 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) required the advisory panel to asVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00249 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
228 

sess and make recommendations on whether there should be any 

additional WMD–CSTs beyond the 55 already authorized and, if so, 

how many more and where they should be located. 

Prior to the September 15, 2010, report of the advisory panel, 

‘‘Report of the Advisory Panel on Department of Defense Capabilities for Support of Civil Authorities After Certain Incidents,’’ the 

Department of Defense, using funds appropriated by Congress, established 2 additional WMD–CSTs beyond the 55 authorized, 1 in 

New York and 1 in Florida. In its report, the advisory panel concluded that the number of WMD–CSTs, including the 55 certified 

Civil Support Teams (CST) and the 2 new (as yet uncertified) CSTs 

in New York and Florida, was adequate, and recommended that 

the Secretary ‘‘neither authorize more Civil Support Teams nor 

change their locations at this time.’’ 

The Department of Defense certified the new CST in New York 

on November 29, 2010, and certified the new CST in Florida on November 4, 2011. 

The committee is disappointed that the Department established 

2 additional CSTs that had not been authorized, but—given the advisory panel’s conclusion that the 57 CSTs are the adequate number and in the correct locations, and that the 2 new CSTs have 

been certified—the committee believes their authorization is warranted. However, in order to prevent the creation of future unauthorized CSTs, the committee has included the prohibition on establishing additional CSTs, beyond the 57 that would be authorized 

in the provision, unless they are specifically authorized in law. 

Budget Items 

Defense Health Program funding 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Defense 

Health Program includes the following change from the budget request. This addition would replace savings assumed by the Department of Defense (DOD) for proposed establishment of enrollment 

fees and increases to certain other TRICARE fees, which the committee did not adopt. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Restore DOD assumed savings for TRICARE proposals...................... .............. 452.0 

Total............................................................ ..................................................... 452.0 

Demand Reduction Program—expanded drug testing 

The budget request included $889.5 million for the Department 

of Defense’s (DOD) Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, 

Defense-wide, and $109.8 million for the DOD’s Drug Demand Reduction Program. The committee recommends a decrease of $25.9 

million in Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defensewide, and increase of $25.9 million in Drug Demand Reduction Program. 

The committee supports the ongoing efforts of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to expand the existing Drug Demand Reduction Program testing program to include 

prescription and synthetic drugs. Further, the committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to program funding for these activities in 

future years. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
229 

Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan 

The budget request for the Department of Defense Office of the 

Inspector General (DODIG), included $273.8 million in Operation 

and Maintenance (O&M)—$73.1 million less than the fiscal year 

2012 appropriated level and $76.5 million less than the amount required to carry out the DODIG’s growth plan for fiscal year 2013. 

The committee recommends an increase of $59.1 million in O&M 

for the DODIG. 

The committee recognizes that all elements of the Department of 

Defense (DOD) have been required to reduce staffing and expenditures and that a growth plan established in 2008 requires reconsideration in light of new budgetary realities. The committee further 

recognizes that last year’s appropriated funding included $14.0 million for expenses related to base realignment and closing (BRAC) 

that will not be needed this year. 

However, the independent audit and investigative functions of 

the DODIG play a critical role in identifying waste, fraud, and 

abuse in DOD programs and operations. In fiscal year 2011, 

DODIG audits and investigations resulted in $2.6 billion of savings, an average $8.79 saved for every dollar appropriated and $1.6 

million saved per DODIG employee. 

The increase recommended by the committee would not fully 

fund the DODIG growth plan, but would restore DODIG funding 

to the fiscal year 2012 appropriated level, minus the $14.0 million 

for BRAC funding that is no longer needed. The committee directs 

that the added funding be used by the DODIG to conduct oversight 

related to military operations in Afghanistan, review contract management and acquisitions, and support audits to identify potential 

waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee directs the DODIG to reevaluate the 2008 growth plan and establish future staffing objectives on the basis of audit and investigation need and current 

budgetary realities. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(231) 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Purpose (sec. 1501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish this 

title and make authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in additional to 

amounts otherwise authorized in this Act, to provide for additional 

costs due to overseas contingency operations. 

Procurement (sec. 1502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for procurement at the levels identified in 

section 4102 of division D of this Act. 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation at the levels identified in section 4202 of division D of this Act. 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for operation and maintenance at the levels 

identified in section 4302 of division D of this Act. 

Military personnel (sec. 1505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this Act. 

Working capital funds (sec. 1506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for Defense Working Capital Funds at the 

levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defensewide (sec. 1508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug AcVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00253 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
232 

tivities, Defense-wide, at the level identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509) 

The committee recommends a provision that 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 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would state that 

amounts authorized to be appropriated by this title are in addition 

to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by this Act. 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

transfer of up to an additional $4.0 billion of war-related funding 

authorizations in this title among the accounts in this title. 

Subtitle C—Limitations and Other Matters 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

funds made available to the Department of Defense for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) for fiscal year 2013 remain subject to certain conditions specified in section 1513 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public law 110– 

181; 122 Stat. 428), as amended by section 1531(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383; 124 Stat. 4424). 

The provision would also explicitly authorize the use of ASFF 

funds during fiscal year 2013 to increase the capacity of the Afghanistan Ministry of Interior to recruit, vet, train, and manage 

the Afghan Public Protection Force (APPF), the guard force established to take over the provision of certain security services from 

private security contractors. The committee is concerned by reports 

that the APPF lacks adequate capacity in both quantity and quality, and encourages the Department of Defense to take appropriate 

steps to help build the capacity of the APPF during this transition 

period. The committee also encourages the Department to continue 

to monitor and periodically assess the development of the APPF to 

help ensure that this force has the capacity to provide, and is providing, security to the U.S. military and civilian installations, convoys, and personnel that are under its protection. 

Additionally, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a plan for 

continuing to use the ASFF to build and sustain the Afghanistan 

National Security Forces (ANSF) through September 30, 2017. The 

committee believes the ASFF has proven effective for purposes of 

building the capacity of the ANSF and encourages the continued 

use of the fund to support the ANSF during and after the transition to an Afghan security lead in 2014. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
233 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, for 1 

fiscal year, the authority for the Secretary of Defense to use funds 

to investigate, develop, and provide equipment, supplies, services, 

personnel, and funds to assist efforts to defeat improvised explosive 

devices. The provision would also permit the Secretary to transfer 

funds from the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund to 

certain other accounts of the Department of Defense. Further, the 

provision would permit the Secretary to expend not more than 

$15.0 million to provide training, equipment, services, and supplies 

to counter the flow of improvised explosive device precursor chemicals from Pakistan into locations in Afghanistan. 

Plan for transition in funding of United States Special Operations Command from supplemental funding for overseas contingency operations to recurring funding under 

the future-years defense program (sec. 1533) 

The committee notes that approximately one-quarter of the fiscal 

year 2013 budget request for U.S. Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM) is Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. 

During testimony before the Committee on March 6, 2012, the 

Commander of USSOCOM predicted ‘‘Even with the conclusion of 

operations in Afghanistan, historical deployment data reveals a 

constant demand for a ‘‘steady state’’ deployed force of nearly 

12,000 special operations forces (SOF) to support the Geographic 

Combatant Commanders’ requirements.’’ 

In response to policy questions from the committee prior to his 

confirmation, the Commander of USSOCOM noted ‘‘the new 

USSOCOM Commander will be challenged to deliver the required 

[SOF] capabilities in a fiscally constrained environment knowing 

the budget without OCO transition does not fully resource the 

Command.’’ Furthermore, the Commander of USSOCOM indicated 

‘‘A decrease in the Command’s budget level would severely impact 

my ability to meet the demand for SOF and significantly increase 

the risk to our Nation’s security’’ and ‘‘for some higher intensity 

SOF elements, the OCO percentage is greater than 75 percent. 

Without this transition, mission failure is a real possibility.’’ 

The committee is aware that the fiscal year 2013 budget request 

begins the initial migration of approximately $960.0 million in 

USSOCOM funding from the OCO to the base budget to support 

enduring SOF requirements. However, the committee is concerned 

that the Department of Defense has not identified a plan to fully 

transition funding for enduring SOF requirements from the OCO 

to base budget in future years, potentially putting maintenance of 

SOF capabilities at risk. As such, the committee recommends a 

provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to provide 

the congressional defense committees, as part of the fiscal year 

2014 budget request, with a plan to fully transition appropriate 

USSOCOM funding from the OCO to base budget over the futureyears defense program to maintain critical and enduring SOF capabilities. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
234 

Extension of authority on Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan (sec. 1534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for fiscal year 2013 the authority under section 1535 of the Ike Skelton 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 

Law 111–383; 124 Stat. 4426), as amended, for the Department of 

Defense Task Force on Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan. The provision would authorize the use of up to $93.0 

million in Overseas Contingency Operations, Operation and Maintenance, for the Army, to support the Task Force’s activities to support the counterinsurgency strategy through economic development 

and job creation. 

Assessments of training activities and intelligence activities 

of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (sec. 1535) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct assessments of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization’s (JIEDDO) training 

activities and intelligence activities. 

Six years after the Department of Defense (DOD) established 

JIEDDO as its coordinating agency to lead, advocate, and coordinate responses to the improvised explosive device (IED) threat 

across the Department, according to the Government Accountability Office, DOD continues to experience fragmentation, overlap, 

and duplication in its counter-IED efforts. Two areas where the 

committee is most concerned about these risks are in the JIEDDO 

intelligence analysis activities and its training activities. In the 

case of both of these activities, JIEDDO continues to conduct activities that are wholly duplicative of various elements of the military 

departments and the intelligence community. Before the committee 

recommends significant reductions in these activities, the committee hopes the Secretary of Defense—in consultation with the appropriate DOD elements—will identify areas of duplication and 

make an assessment of whether duplication of effort is necessary 

to ensure mission success. 

The committee hopes this internal assessment will result in 

JIEDDO divesting of its training activities no later than the end 

of fiscal year 2013. Further, the committee hopes JIEDDO will 

transfer the Counter-IED Operations Integration Center to the appropriate entities within the military departments, intelligence directorates, or to elements within the intelligence community no 

later than the end of fiscal year 2013. 

Budget Items 

AH–64 Apache Block IIIB new build 

The budget request included $71.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), for 

AH–64 Apache Block IIIB new build aircraft as war replacements. The committee recommends a decrease of $71.0 million in APA 

OCO for AH–64 Apache Block IIIB aircraft. The committee continues to disagree, as noted in last year’s Senate report accompanying S. 1253 (S. Rept. 112–26) the National Defense AuthorizaVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
235 

tion Act for Fiscal Year 2012, that procurement of this aircraft, 

while still in development and testing, is a legitimate war loss replacement. 

Rapid equipping soldier support equipment 

The budget request included $98.2 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), for rapid 

equipping soldier support equipment (RESSE). The committee 

notes that significant balances of funds appropriated in prior years 

remain available for obligation in fiscal year 2013. The committee 

recommends a decrease of $37.0 million in OPA OCO for RESSE. 

Solar power units 

The budget request included $98.2 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), for rapid 

equipping soldier support equipment (RESSE). The committee 

notes that the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force has initiated the procurement of solar power units that significantly increase the operational energy effectiveness and sustainability of remotely located 

units in Afghanistan. These solar power units will be deployed to 

support Village Stability Operations, and will substantially reduce 

the requirement for fuel delivery by ground convoy or by air. These 

units provide sustainable power for U.S. forces and the Afghan people. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in 

OPA OCO for RESSE solar power units. 

Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund 

The budget request included $62.5 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance (OM), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), of 

which $400.0 million was for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund 

(AIF) in fiscal year 2013 to support a program to develop and carry 

out large-scale infrastructure projects that support the counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. The committee’s concerns regarding the need to transition responsibility for large-scale infrastructure projects in Afghanistan from the U.S. Department of Defense to the U.S. Agency for International Development are discussed in the section of this report relating to title XII. The committee also continues to have concerns about the sustainability of 

large-scale infrastructure projects in Afghanistan as the Government of Afghanistan assumes increasing responsibility for Afghanistan’s economic development. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million for OM, 

OCO, for AIF, to a level of $350.0 million. 

Commanders’ Emergency Response Program 

The budget request included $400.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas Contingency Operations 

(OCO) for the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP) 

in Afghanistan for fiscal year 2013. 

The committee notes that a primary purpose of CERP is to enhance force protection for U.S. troops by enabling commanders to 

fund projects that directly address the humanitarian and reconstruction needs of the Afghan people, particularly in less secure 

areas of the country, thereby gaining the support of the local popuVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
236 

lace. As U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan decrease, the committee 

anticipates that the requirement for CERP will decrease at the 

same time, as occurred in Iraq. The committee also notes that the 

Commander, International Security Assistance Force, has issued 

new, more stringent guidelines for the use of CERP in Afghanistan. 

In part as a result of these new guidelines, the rate of expenditure 

of CERP funds in Afghanistan has decreased significantly. According to a Defense Department report, as of March 31, 2012, CERP 

in Afghanistan had committed $61.2 million, obligated $31.4 million, and disbursed $19.0 million of the $400.0 million authorized 

for the program during fiscal year 2012. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $200.0 mil- lion in OMA, OCO, for CERP to a level of $200.0 million to be 

available for CERP in Afghanistan. 

Installation information infrastructure support for United 

States Southern Command 

The budget request included $393.2 million in the Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account for Other Personnel Support. At the request 

of United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), the committee 

recommends a decrease of $40.0 million in OMA, OCO and an increase of $40.0 million in Other Procurement, Army, OCO for the 

Installation Information Infrastructure Modification Program to 

support the SOUTHCOM Commander’s information infrastructure 

requirements. 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

The budget request included $1,675.4 million in the Overseas 

Contingency Operations (OCO) account for the Joint Improvised 

Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF). This amount includes 

$950.5 million for the attack the network line of operation; $149.5 

million for the train the force line of operation; and $400.0 million 

for the defeat the device line of operation. 

As noted in title I of this report, the committee recommended a 

transfer of $227.4 million from the JIEDDF’s base budget request 

for staff and infrastructure to the OCO budget request. Adding 

these funds together, JIEDDF’s total budget request is: $1,902.8 

million. 

The committee remains deeply concerned about the threat posed 

by, and the deadly impact of, improvised explosive devices (IED) to 

the nearly 70,000 U.S. service members still deployed in Afghanistan. The committee will continue to support robust funding for 

these efforts as long as U.S. service members are deployed in Afghanistan. 

Through fiscal year 2012, Congress has authorized and appropriated over $20.0 billion to the Joint Improvised Explosive Device 

Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) to address the IED threat. In addition, other Department of Defense (DOD) components, including 

the military services, have spent billions of dollars from their own 

funds developing counter-IED capabilities. 

Six years after DOD established JIEDDO as its coordinating 

agency to lead, advocate, and coordinate responses to the IED 

threat across the Department, according to the Government AcVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00258 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
237 

countability Office (GAO), DOD continues to lack comprehensive 

visibility of its counter-IED expenditures and investments, including those from JIEDDO, the military services, and relevant DOD 

agencies. 

In March 2011, the GAO found that no fewer than 31 DOD entities, many of which started as ad hoc organizations, play a significant role in various urgent needs processes. For example, GAO reported, JIEDDO, the military services, and the Special Operations 

Command have all established their own processes and guidance 

on meeting specific urgent needs, and their own feedback mechanisms for assessing how well fielded solutions meet such needs. 

In the GAO’s February 2012 report on DOD’s counter-IED efforts, the Comptroller General warned, again, that DOD risks fragmentation, overlap, and duplication because it still does not have 

a comprehensive listing of DOD-wide counter-IED initiatives. Additionally, GAO reported that although JIEDDO recently issued its 

own strategic plan, it has not developed a DOD-wide plan. By not 

having a comprehensive DOD-wide strategic plan with results-oriented strategic goals, DOD is limited in its ability to evaluate the 

effectiveness of its counter-IED efforts and prioritize projects within future budget levels. Further, the committee is concerned that 

JIEDDO has hundreds of millions in unexpended authorized and 

appropriated funds. 

In light of these concerns, the committee recommends a total reduction of $200.0 million to the budget request for the JIEDDF. 

The reduction to each line of operation is reflected in the budget 

tables. 

Items of Special Interest 

Department of Defense procurement of Mi–17 helicopters 

through Rosoboronexport 

The Department of Defense contract with Rosoboronexport, 

awarded by the Department of the Army on June 1, 2011, on a 

sole-source basis, procures at minimum 21 Mi–17 helicopters and 

spares for the Afghan military. The contract has a total value of 

nearly $1.0 billion and includes options for additional aircraft, 

spares, and support. The Department has indicated that the procurement of additional Mi–17 for the Afghan military may be required. 

The Department states that ‘‘Rosoboronexport is the sole entity 

controlling export of military-use Mi–17 helicopters.’’ The committee 

notes that in 2009 the Department of the Navy procured four commercial Mi–17 helicopters through a private U.S. broker following 

an open and competitive selection process. Those helicopters were 

produced by the original equipment manufacturer and are presently in service with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) Air Training Command-Afghanistan. On July 6, 2010, the 

Department of the Navy released a Request for Proposals for a second competitive procurement of Mi–17s, this time for 21 aircraft. 

On December 20, 2010, prior to a contract award, the Department 

of Defense cancelled the procurement. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct a review of the Department’s current process for 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
238 

procuring Mi–17 helicopters and parts through Rosoboronexport. 

The Comptroller should provide this report to the congressional defense committees by no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The report shall be submitted in an unclassified 

format, but may include a classified annex if necessary. The review 

should, at a minimum, assess: 

1. The availability of alternative means for the Department of 

Defense to procure commercial or military versions of the Mi–17 

helicopter and parts, rather than buying through Rosoboronexport. 

2. The feasibility of procuring a commercial version of the Mi– 

17 in lieu of the military version (including an assessment of any 

applicable legal restrictions on such procurement, the relative cost 

of military and commercial systems, and the operational significance of any differences between military and commercial systems). 

3. The impact that purchasing Mi–17 aircraft through 

Rosoboronexport can reasonably be expected to have on the risk of 

counterfeiting, access to technical data, and aircraft safety. 

4. The reasons for the Department of Defense’s cancellation of 

the Navy’s 2010 competitive procurement of 21 Mi–17 helicopters. 

The report should include the Comptroller General’s findings and 

recommendations, including findings as to the relative cost-effectiveness of the procurement approaches taken by the Department 

of the Army and the Department of the Navy, and any recommendations that the Comptroller General may have as to 

whether future procurements of Mi–17s should be made on a competitive basis, and whether sources other than Rosoboronexport 

should be considered. 

Future size of the Afghan National Security Forces 

The committee believes that strong, capable, and sustained Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) are a fundamental component of the long-term United States and coalition strategy in Afghanistan. To this end, the United States and coalition partners 

have invested substantial resources to build the ANSF to a force 

of 352,000 in 2012 and sustain that force over time so that, as U.S. 

and coalition forces draw down, Afghan forces will be sufficiently 

capable to maintain the hard-won gains that U.S., coalition, and 

Afghan forces have secured at great cost in both blood and treasure. To achieve this objective, the committee believes it is imperative that the ANSF is correctly sized, structured, and resourced to 

provide enduring security for their country. 

The committee notes with concern that news reports indicate administration officials are considering significant reductions in the 

size of the ANSF after 2014, by as much as one-third. These proposed reductions appear to be based on presumptions about future 

security conditions in Afghanistan and the affordability of sustaining these forces years from now. The committee believes that 

any decisions on the future size and composition of and funding for 

the ANSF after these forces assume the lead for security throughout Afghanistan in 2014 must be driven principally by strategic 

considerations and the security conditions on the ground at that 

time. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report periodically to the congressional defense committees with an 

assessment of the needs of the ANSF, to include metrics on factors 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
239 

that will influence decisions on the size and composition of this 

force. The report should also identify and assess risks to security 

and stability in Afghanistan associated with reductions to the size 

and changes in the composition of the ANSF. 

Finally, the committee believes that long-term funding for the 

ANSF should not be a U.S.-only effort and that all North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization allies and partners share an interest in supporting a strong ANSF that will be sufficiently capable of providing 

enduring security for the country of Afghanistan. As such, the committee commends those partners who have already committed financial support for this effort and urges the administration to continue its efforts to secure additional support from the international 

community. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(241) 

TITLE XVI—MILITARY COMPENSATION AND 

RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION COMMISSION 

Short title (sec. 1601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would cite title XVI 

of this Act as the ‘‘Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission Act of 2012’’. 

Purpose (sec. 1602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

purpose of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission as (1) ensuring the long-term viability of the AllVolunteer Force; (2) enabling a high quality of life for military families; and (3) modernizing and achieving fiscal sustainability of the 

compensation and retirement systems. 

Definitions (sec. 1603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish 

definitions for common terms used in the Military Compensation 

and Retirement Modernization Commission Act of 2012. 

Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (sec. 1604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish in 

the Executive Branch an independent commission called the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. 

The provision would provide that the Commission be composed of 

nine members appointed by the President, in consultation with the 

Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and House of Representatives. The provision 

would provide that the President designate one member as the 

Commission’s Chairman. The provision would require that Commission members have significant expertise in federal compensation and retirement systems, including the military compensation 

and retirement systems, private sector compensation, retirement, 

or human resource systems, actuarial science, and be selected 

based on their knowledge and experience with the uniformed services and the military compensation and retirement systems. The 

provision would require that at least five members of the Commission have active-duty military experience, that at least one member 

have experience as an enlisted member of the armed forces, that 

at least one member have experience as a member of a reserve 

component, and that at least one member have been a spouse of 

a military member, or be someone with significant experience in 

military family issues. Finally, the provision would prohibit the appointment of individuals as members of the Commission who are, 

or were within the year preceding appointment, employed by a vetVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
242 

erans service organization or military-related advocacy group or association. 

Commission hearings and meetings (sec. 1605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission 

to conduct hearings on recommendations for legislative change 

under consideration, and that all hearings be open to the public, 

except those where classified information might be considered. The 

provision would require that any hearing open to the public be advertised on a federal website no less than 14 days prior to the hearing. The provision would require the Commission to hold its initial 

meeting within 30 days of all members being appointed. The provision would establish that five members constitute a quorum of the 

Commission. Lastly, the provision would require the Commission to 

seek written public comment on recommendations under consideration. 

Principles and procedure for commission recommendations 

(sec. 1606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission 

to conduct a review of the military retirement and compensation 

systems in the context of current compensation and retirement programs, force management objectives, and changes in life expectancy 

and the labor force. The provision would require the President, 

within 5 months of the establishment of the Commission, to establish and transmit to Congress and the Commission principles for 

modernizing the military compensation and retirement systems, including maintaining recruitment and retention of the best military 

personnel, modernizing the active and reserve military compensation and retirement systems, differentiating between active and reserve military service, differentiating between service in the armed 

forces and service in the other uniformed services, and ensuring 

the fiscal sustainability of the military compensation and retirement systems. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense, within 9 months of the establishment of the Commission, to 

transmit to Congress and the Commission the Secretary’s recommendations for military compensation and retirement modernization, and would require the Secretary to consult the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Commerce, and Homeland 

Security on recommendations that affect the Public Health Service, 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the 

U.S. Coast Guard, respectively. The provision would require the 

Commission to conduct public hearings on the Secretary’s recommendations. The provision would require the Commission, within 15 months of its establishment, to transmit to the President and 

Congress a report containing its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for modernizing the military compensation and retirement systems, and legislative proposals necessary to implement 

those recommendations. 

Finally, the provision would require that recommendations of the 

Commission grandfather the benefits of service members who first 

became a member of a uniformed service before the date of enactVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
243 

ment of a military compensation and retirement modernization act 

pursuant to this title, except that such recommendations may include an opt-in mechanism for members who would choose to be 

covered by some or all of the provisions of a military compensation 

and retirement modernization act. 

Consideration of commission recommendations by the 

President and Congress (sec. 1607) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President, within 60 days of receiving the report of the Military 

Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission required 

under section 1606 of this title, to transmit to Congress and the 

Commission a report approving or disapproving the Commission’s 

recommendations. The provision would also provide for a procedure 

for the Commission to revise its recommendations in response to a 

Presidential disapproval. Finally, the provision would provide for 

expedited and protected consideration of military compensation and 

retirement modernization legislation in the Senate and the House 

of Representatives, without amendment, and without being subject 

to points of order, other than budget points of order. 

Pay for members of the commission (sec. 1608) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

pay rate for members of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission as the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 

section 5315 of title 5, United States Code. The provision would set 

the pay rate for the Chairman of the Commission as the daily 

equivalent of the annual rate of pay for level III of the Executive 

Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States Code. 

Executive Director (sec. 1609) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission 

to appoint, and fix the rate of pay of, an Executive Director in accordance with section 3161 of title 5, United States Code. The provision would prohibit the appointment as Executive Director of any 

person having served on active duty in the armed forces, as a civilian employee of the Department of Defense, or as an employee of 

a veterans service organization or military-related advocacy group 

or association during the 1-year period preceding the date of appointment. 

Staff (sec. 1610) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission 

Executive Director to appoint and fix the rate of pay of additional 

personnel to serve as staff for the Commission. The provision would 

limit the number of Department of Defense personnel detailed to 

the Commission to no more than one-third of the total personnel 

employed as staff, and would prohibit the detail to the Commission 

staff of anyone employed by the Department of Defense who was 

involved in the formation of the recommendations of the Secretary 

of Defense to the Commission. The provision would limit the numVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
244 

ber of personnel eligible for military retired pay to no more than 

one-fourth of the total personnel serving as Commission staff. The 

provision would prohibit a person from serving on the Commission 

staff if that person had been employed by a veterans service organization or military-related advocacy group or association within 

the 1-year period preceding employment on the Commission staff. 

Finally, the provision would prohibit the service of any staff member to the Commission employed by or detailed from the Department of Defense from being considered in that staff member’s efficiency or fitness report. 

Contracting authority (sec. 1611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission 

to lease space and acquire personal property to the extent funds 

are available. 

Judicial review precluded (sec. 1612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would preclude the 

actions of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Military 

Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission under 

section 1606 of this title, and of the President under section 

1607(a) of this title, from judicial review. 

Termination (sec. 1613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

the termination of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission no later than 26 months after the Commission’s establishment date. 

Funding (sec. 1614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Department 

of Defense for fiscal year 2013, $10.0 million be available to the 

Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission 

until expended to carry out its duties under this title. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(245) 

TITLE XVII—NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE 

STRUCTURE OF THE AIR FORCE 

National commission on the structure of the Air Force (secs. 

1701–1709) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create a commission to study the appropriate makeup of the Air Force, considering that the Department of the Air Force draws upon active-duty 

forces, the Air Force Reserve, and the Air National Guard. 

Included in the budget request was a plan by the Air Force to 

retire or realign various aviation units, and to cut 9.9 thousand 

personnel from the rolls, including 3.9 thousand active duty personnel, 5.1 thousand from the Air National Guard and 0.9 thousand from the Air Force Reserve. These changes represent a percentage reduction of 1.2 percent, 4.8 percent, and 1.3 percent, respectively, of force structure for each component. 

The committee believes that there is little justification for the 

relative imbalance in the cuts applied to the Air National Guard. 

The Air Force and the Department of Defense have been negotiating potential compromise outcomes that would change the relative distribution of aircraft and personnel, but those negotiations 

have as yet been unproductive. Since the Air Force proposes to implement many of the planned moves in fiscal year 2013, the committee feels it must take action now to delay those actions that 

would be difficult or impossible to reverse, and instead place the 

Air Force’s judgment on appropriate force structure mixes under 

the scrutiny of a national commission. 

The commission would be made up of four members appointed by 

leadership of the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives and four members appointed by the 

President. The commission, in considering possible force structure 

adjustments, would be directed to identify a structure that: 

(1) meets current and anticipated requirements of the combatant commands; 

(2) achieves an appropriate balance between the regular and 

reserve components of the Air Force, taking advantage of the 

unique strengths and capabilities of each; 

(3) ensures that the reserve components of the Air Force 

have the capacity needed to support current and anticipated 

homeland defense and disaster assistance missions in the 

United States; 

(4) provides for sufficient numbers of regular members of the 

Air Force to provide a base of trained personnel from which the 

personnel of the reserve components of the Air Force could be 

recruited; 

(5) maintains a peacetime rotation force to avoid exceeding 

operational tempo goals of 1:2 for regular members of the Air 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
246 

Forces and 1:5 for members of the reserve components of the 

Air Force; and 

(6) maximizes achievable costs savings. 

The commission would be required to produce a report not later 

than March 31, 2013. 

The provision would also prevent the Air Force from using any 

fiscal year 2013 funds to divest, retire, or transfer, or prepare to 

divest, retire, or transfer, any aircraft of the Air Force assigned to 

units of the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve as of May 31, 

2012. 

The provision would allow an exception for the Secretary of the 

Air Force to divest or retire, or prepare to divest or retire, C–5A 

aircraft, if the Secretary were to replace that aircraft through a 

transfer of C–5B, C–5M, or C–17 aircraft so as to maintain all Air 

National Guard and Air Force Reserve units impacted by such divestment or retirement at current or higher assigned manpower 

levels to operate the transferred aircraft. The provision also includes authorization of an additional $1.4 

billion for the purpose of freezing Air Force structure in place or 

as planned in order to reserve decision space for the National Commission. 

The amount of this additional authorization of appropriations is 

based on a rough estimate by the Department of the Air Force of 

the cost required to carry out this section. The committee expects 

that a review and analysis of the actions required to carry out this 

section may result in a cost to the Air Force that differs from the 

additional authorization of appropriation. The committee expects to 

be promptly notified once the Air Force determines the total cost 

to carry out this provision. 

The Air Force budget request for fiscal year 2013 assumed rough- ly $1.4 billion in savings that derived from retiring several systems, cutting the numbers of systems that remain, and realigning 

systems between the active and reserve components. 

The committee completely understands that the Air Force had to 

make tough choices in the budget. However, many of the choices 

the Air Force made are puzzling, and almost all are lacking sufficient analysis to support the conclusions in the budget. Some actually fly in the face of what the Air Force asserted just within the 

past couple of years. For example, a very troubling aspect of the 

budget proposal is that, within these force structure changes, the 

cuts in manpower and aircraft would fall disproportionately on the 

Air National Guard. In the fighter forces, the Air Force is planning 

for a cut of almost one third in the A–10 force, with that cut 

weighted heavily toward the Air National Guard. Original data 

provided by the Air Force showed that, simultaneously with making these cuts in A–10 force structure, the Air Force was planning 

to increase the size of the active-duty A–10 training squadrons. 

In tactical airlift programs, the Air Force had established a requirement, validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, 

for 38 C–27 aircraft to provide direct support to Army ground 

forces. All of those aircraft were slated to go to the Guard. The 

committee observes that the Air Force joined what was a joint program with the Army, and then took sole ownership of it. Air Force 

officials testified that they needed to pursue the C–27 because the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
247 

C–130 could not meet requirements. Now, the Air Force has reversed course, and claims that the C–130 is adequate for meeting 

the direct support mission for the Army. 

The committee believes that changing of Air Force force structure 

is too important to be approached with such a lack of rationale, unsupported by objective analysis. The committee has recommended 

two steps to improve this situation. For the near term, the committee is recommending creation of a National Commission on the 

Structure of the Air Force that would report recommendations next 

year on this matter. Elsewhere, for the longer term, the committee 

is recommending a provision that would direct the Comptroller 

General to develop recommendations for objective criteria to be 

used by the Department of Defense to make decisions relating to 

realignments of units employed at military installations that are 

not currently covered by section 2687 of title 10, United States 

Code. 

The committee is concerned that, in an effort to realign its force 

structure, valuable and necessary coordination between the Air 

Force, Army, and National Guard regarding the Air Force’s fiscal 

year 2013 force structure modifications were overlooked. In addition, the committee is concerned that the Secretary of the Air Force 

has failed to provide accurate analysis on the effects of the Air 

Force modifications decision. Earlier this year, the Secretary of the 

Air Force sent a letter to committee members in an attempt to justify the Air Force’s fiscal year 2013 force structure modifications 

that result in the reallocation of Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard units. However, the numbers provided in the Secretary’s letter are vastly different from numbers received and coordinated between Air Force and Army personnel on-site at locations being affected. 

Therefore, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of the Air 

Force suspend all force structure adjustments until October, 1, 

2013, to allow the committee to review the recommendations of the 

National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force as they pertain to: (1) fielding of integrated joint training, command and control, and essential capabilities; and (2) current and anticipated requirements that support current defense strategy. 

Retention of core functions of the Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom Air Force Base pending future structure 

study (sec. 1710) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the Secretary of the Air Force shall retain the current leadership 

rank and core functions of the Electronic Systems Center at 

Hanscom Air Force Base as existed as of November 1, 2011, until 

180 days after the National Commission on the Structure of the Air 

Force submits to the congressional defense committees the report 

required under section 1703. 

The committee is also puzzled by the Air Force’s decision to realign manpower and core functions at the Electronic Systems Center (ESC). Last September, the Commander of Air Force Materiel 

Command and the Air Force Service Acquisition Executive asserted 

that the programs executed by ESC employ the largest acquisition 

workforce and noted that the delivery of integrated electronic capaVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
248 

bilities, multifaceted command and control (C2) requirements, and 

cross-cutting affordable solutions in the cyber domain supported 

the current defense strategy. Therefore, the committee strongly 

urges the Secretary of the Air Force to retain until October 1, 2013, 

the current manpower and leadership authorizations as well as 

core functions of ESC with the same integrated mission elements, 

responsibilities, and capabilities as exists from November 1, 2011. 

This would allow the committee to review the recommendations of 

the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force as they 

pertain to: (1) acquisition and fielding of integrated C2 and cyber 

capabilities; or (2) current and anticipated requirements related to 

integration across multiple Program Executive Offices involved in 

solutions relating to command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) mission areas, ground/air/space networks, datalinks, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, 

and electronic warfare that support current defense strategy. 

The committee also directs the Comptroller General to prepare 

an independent assessment of the impact of the reorganization of 

ESC as it relates to national defense including: (1) Air Force acquisition and fielding of integrated C2 and cyber capabilities; (2) Life 

Cycle Management Center Commander management, span of control, and integration across multiple Program Executive Offices involved in C4I mission areas, ground/air/space networks, datalinks, 

C2, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and electronic 

warfare cyber; (3) enablers required to execute ESC’s C4I mission, 

to include location of expertise, source of expertise, and identification of talent shortfalls; and (4) cycle time drivers for electronic 

system contractual actions and ultimate fielding timelines. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(249) 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary and explanation of funding tables 

Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It includes funding authorizations for the construction and operation of military 

family housing as well as military construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure accounts that fund military construction, 

environmental cleanup, and other activities required to implement 

the decisions in base closure rounds. 

The tables contained in this act provide the project-level authorizations for the military construction funding authorized in Division B of this Act, other than the overseas contingency operations 

projects authorized in title XXIX, and summarize that funding by 

account. Funding for base closure projects is summarized in the 

table that follows, and is explained in additional detail in the table 

included in title XXVII of this report. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget requested $11.2 billion for military 

construction and housing programs. Of this amount, $8.7 billion 

was requested for military construction, $1.7 billion for the construction and operation of family housing, and $476.7 million for 

base closure activities, including $126.7 million to implement the 

results of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations for 

military construction and housing programs totaling $10.6 billion. 

The total amount authorized for appropriations reflects the committee’s continuing commitment to invest in the recapitalization of 

DOD facilities and infrastructure. 

Short title (sec. 2001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate division B of this Act as the Military Construction Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2013. 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 

specified by law (sec. 2002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military construction projects, land acquisition, family housing projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization infrastructure 

program as October 1, 2015, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2016, 

whichever is later. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(251) 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1.9 billion for military construction and $534.7 million for family 

housing for the Army for fiscal year 2013. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1.6 billion for military construction and $534.7 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2013. 

The budget requested $192.0 million to construct a new barracks 

at the United States Military Academy (USMA). The committee 

has significant concerns about the condition of the current barracks 

at USMA. Their condition is reminiscent of other facilities that 

caused national outrage. The committee has been informed that the 

Army does not plan to renovate its existing barracks infrastructure 

until fiscal year 2018. The committee believes this is unacceptable 

and would support immediate action to begin renovations using 

available operation and maintenance funds. 

The budget requests $30.0 million for infrastructure at Fort 

Bragg, North Carolina to support construction of facilities for special operations forces. These projects are contained in this year’s 

budget request. 

The committee recommends eliminating this infrastructure 

project since the resulting infrastructure would not constitute a 

‘‘complete and useable’’ facility as required by statute. The committee recommends moving that $30.0 million to the facilities the 

infrastructure was expected to support, as inclusion in those facilities will yield complete and useable facilities. 

The committee directs the Special Operations Command 

(SOCOM) to provide updated DD form 1391s prior to final passage 

of the bill with these funds properly apportioned to the facilities requiring infrastructure. The committee further directs SOCOM to 

budget for complete and useable facilities that do not require supporting stand-alone infrastructure. The committee reiterates the requirement that military construction projects, even those supporting special forces, be complete and useable. The budget requests $84.0 million for the Millennium Site cemetery expansion at Arlington National Cemetery (ANC). The committee notes that the Army’s military construction account has historically not been used to authorize construction at ANC, and the 

committee believes changing this precedent would not be in the 

best interest of Arlington National Cemetery. 

Further, the committee notes that the Appropriations committees 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives have moved funding from the Army’s military construction accounts to Cemeterial 

Expenses. The request from Arlington National Cemetery has been 

fully funded in the Cemeterial Expenses account. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
252 

The committee supports fully funding the Arlington National 

Cemetery request; however, to minimize disruption of the planned 

cemetery expansion and ensure the project is addressed in the appropriate budget line, the committee recommends removing this request from the military construction accounts consistent with the 

actions taken by the Senate and House Appropriations committees. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the active component of the Army 

for fiscal year 2013. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Army for fiscal year 2013. It would also authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing management 

offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Army authorized for construction for 

fiscal year 2013 in this Act. This provision would also provide an 

overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 

and family housing projects for the active-duty component of the 

Army. The State list contained in this report is the binding list of 

the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2010 project (sec. 2104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in the table in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (division 

B of Public Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 2628) to allow for the construction of a standard design Access Control Point at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2009 

projects (sec. 2105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization for two Army fiscal year 2009 military construction 

projects until October 1, 2013, or the date of enactment of an act 

authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2014, 

whichever is later. This extension was requested by the Department of Defense. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 

projects (sec. 2106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization for five Army fiscal year 2010 military construction 

projects until October 1, 2013, or the date of enactment of an act 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
253 

authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2014, 

whichever is later. This extension was requested by the Department of Defense. 

Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 

project (sec. 2107) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

Cadet Barracks at the United States Military Academy, New York. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(255) 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1.7 billion for military construction and $480.4 million for family 

housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2013. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1.7 billion for military construction and $480.4 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2013. 

The budget requested $14.8 million for a Broad Area Maritime 

Surveillance Maintenance Training Facility at Point Mugu, California. The Department has requested a change in location for that 

project to Ventura County. This change would result in a $2.1 million reduction in the project. The committee recommends this 

change of location and reduction in funding. 

The budget requests $280.0 million for the second increment of 

the Explosives Handling Wharf #2 in Naval Base Kitsap, Washington. The committee understands that the Department will be 

unable to obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and therefore recommends a $25.8 million reduction. 

The budget requests $25.9 million for the second increment of 

the North Ramp Parking at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. Because of continuing concerns with the realignment of United States 

Marines from Okinawa to Guam, addressed later in a separate 

Item of Special Interest in this title, the committee recommends 

elimination of this project. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 

year 2013. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Navy for fiscal year 2013. It would also authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing management 

offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2013 to improve existing Navy family housing units. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
256 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Department of the Navy authorized 

for construction for fiscal year 2013 in this Act. This provision 

would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for 

military construction and family housing projects for the activeduty components of the Navy and the Marine Corps. The State list 

contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects 

authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2012 project (sec. 2205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public 

Law 112–81; 125 Stat. 1666) for construction of an Explosives Handling Wharf #2 at Naval Base Kitsap, Washington. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2009 

projects (sec. 2206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2009 authorization for three projects until October 1, 

2013, or the date of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 

projects (sec. 2207) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2010 authorization for three projects until October 1, 

2013, or the date of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later. 

Realignment of Marines in the Asia-Pacific region (sec. 

2208) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

prohibition on funds for construction activities to implement the realignment of Marine Corps’ forces from Okinawa to other locations. 

Items of Special Interest 

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of the 

costs of realignment of the Marines in the Asia-Pacific 

region 

On April 27, 2012, the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee issued a joint statement in which they detailed plans for the 

realignment of marines on Okinawa. Specifically, the U.S. and 

Japan have decided to delink the realignment of marines from Okinawa to Guam from the construction of the Futenma Replacement 

Facility (FRF). 

The plan contemplates fewer marines moving from Okinawa to 

Guam than planned in the 2006 Roadmap to Realignment Agreement. This should result in a reduction of the size and scope of the 

Guam military buildup. Of the approximately 9,000 marines that 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
257 

will now eventually leave Okinawa, less than 5,000 would be 

moved to Guam and, of those, most would be rotational forces. The 

joint statement also refers to the plan to rotate marines to Australia and to restation marine forces on Hawaii. 

This joint statement describes the plan for marines in the AsiaPacific in broad terms, but leaves unanswered many of the details, 

particularly with respect to cost and timing of the realignment. The 

Comptroller General has been involved in assessing the costs associated with the realignment of marines in the past, specifically in 

its report entitled, Comprehensive Cost Information and Analysis 

Alternatives Needed to Assess Military Posture in Asia (GAO–11– 

316), May 2011. 

The committee remains concerned with the lack of comprehensive cost and schedule data associated with this important U.S. 

force posture issue. The strategic implications of the realignment 

are the subject of an ongoing independent assessment commissioned by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 346 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 

Law 112–81). 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to assess the costs associated with the revised 

plan to realign marines in the Asia-Pacific region as set forth in 

the joint statement of the United States-Japan Security Consultative Committee dated April 27, 2012. The assessment shall identify and assess costs associated with the initiatives’ projected movement of marines to Guam, Hawaii, and Australia. To the extent 

possible, the assessment shall distinguish between costs that are 

known, costs that are estimated, and costs that are not yet known 

and cannot yet be estimated. The assessment should also include 

an estimate of the recurring annual costs of the moves that will affect future budgets for the Department of the Defense, including 

costs for the sustainment of forces, base operating support, and 

other operations and maintenance requirements. 

The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure 

that the Comptroller General receives access to such information 

and other support as the General Comptroller requires to perform 

this assessment. The Comptroller General shall report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2013, on the results of this assessment. 

U.S. force posture in the Asia-Pacific and realignment of the 

U.S. Marines on Okinawa 

The committee strongly supports a robust U.S. military force posture in the Asia-Pacific region as the cornerstone of peace and stability and to underwrite the development of new economic and security partnerships. As such, the stationing of U.S. military forces 

in the Asia-Pacific will stand as an unequivocal commitment to 

U.S. involvement in the region, and will secure our national interests as well as the mutual interests of our partners. To this end, 

the United States has embarked on a series of initiatives intended 

to realign its military force structure to respond to regional interests and it is essential that these initiatives are guided by sound 

strategic concepts and plans for force posture that are militarily efVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
258 

fective, operationally supportable, and fiscally and politically sustainable. 

The committee notes that U.S. bilateral security arrangements in 

the region, especially with Japan and with South Korea, remain 

the foundation of our security posture and activities in Asia. One 

key initiative in the furtherance of the U.S.-Japan bilateral arrangement involves changes to the stationing of U.S. forces in 

Japan and specifically Okinawa. The Defense Policy Review Initiative, as further detailed in the U.S.-Japan Alliance Transformation 

and Realignment for the Future and the 2006 U.S.-Japan Roadmap 

for Realignment Implementation agreement (‘‘Roadmap agreement’’), laid out a series of U.S. force consolidations and base closures intended to improve the cooperation of the two allies and reduce the burden on local Japanese communities. 

Over the past few years, the committee has become increasingly 

concerned that terms of the Roadmap agreement as they related to 

the movement of marines from Okinawa to Guam and to the development of a replacement facility for the existing Marine Corps Air 

Station (MCAS) Futenma, were unrealistic, unworkable, and 

unaffordable. The committee also expressed concern last year about 

posture planning for U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific; and specifically 

the strategic implications and costs of U.S. commitments throughout the region. Subsequently, Congress included legislative provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 (Public Law 112–81) that required an independent assessment of the U.S. force posture in the Pacific Command area of responsibility and that prohibited the obligation of fiscal year 2012 

funds or funds provided by the Government of Japan until certain 

requirements were met. The independent assessment, which is due 

to Congress in June 2012, was intended to help identify emerging 

opportunities to update the U.S. force posture for a better alignment with dynamic regional interests free of the inertia of past decisions. 

On April 27, 2012, the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee issued a joint statement detailing changes to the plans for 

the realignment of marines on Okinawa. Specifically, the U.S. and 

Japan separated the requirement of tangible progress on the construction of the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF) from other 

marine restationing efforts on Okinawa to return lands to local 

communities. Also, while the overall number of marines to leave 

Okinawa remained essentially the same as the previous agreement, 

at about 9,000, the new arrangement will result in fewer marines 

being restationed to Guam with the remainder of the forces being 

relocated to new locations in Australia, Hawaii, or to the west coast 

of the United States. 

The committee notes, however, that the parties have made no adjustment to the plan to build the FRF at Camp Schwab in the 

Henoko area of Okinawa and provided no timeline for the completion of construction of the FRF. In the meantime, the Marine Corps 

will continue to operate from MCAS Futenma, a heavily-encroached air base in the crowded Ginowan area of Okinawa, in facilities and infrastructure that are in deteriorated condition due to 

the deliberate decision over a number of years to defer maintenance, repairs, and renovations in light of the eventual base cloVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
259 

sure. The committee is concerned that any decision to further delay 

the construction of a FRF without a plan to provide for safe, secure 

facilities at MCAS Futenma will put marines and their families at 

risk. Accordingly, the committee strongly recommends that the 

U.S. and Japan establish a timeline for the identification of alternatives to the Henoko FRF plan, including the reconsideration of 

existing military air bases and other airport facilities in the area, 

in order to allow for prudent and critical investments in the current Marine Corps Air Station by both Governments. 

With respect to the plan announced in the April 27th joint statement, the committee has questions about the extent to which the 

updated initiatives are guided by strategic concepts and plans for 

force posture that are militarily effective, operationally supportable, and fiscally and politically sustainable. The committee also 

notes that the new distributed laydown proposed for Marine Corps 

forces will require the completion of a concept of operations, an 

analysis of logistics requirements, and basing plans to establish 

and employ full Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) capabilities at four geographically dispersed locations in Okinawa, Guam, 

Australia, and Hawaii. The committee is concerned that the agreement does not include any formal timelines for budgeting or for 

completion of the realignments. This uncertainty increases the risk 

that a delay in investments or construction prolonged over 10 years 

or more will have a detrimental impact on the readiness and operational capabilities of the MAGTFs in the region. The committee 

also expects the independent assessment to contribute to the review and discussion by the committee of the proposed changes to 

the strategic framework for U.S. forces in the region. Until the 

committee is provided details to adequately assess the strategic impact, feasibility, and affordability of these initiatives, the committee is unwilling to authorize further obligations of funds for 

projects on Guam in support of the relocation, to include investments proposed for civilian facility and infrastructure requirements. 

Also, the committee recognizes that some environmental studies 

will be necessary to consider the effects of the new plans for Guam 

and for Hawaii. These environmental studies will inevitably take 

time, but must be expedited to the greatest extent feasible so that 

the realignments can begin as soon as practical. To this end, the 

Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the environmental studies 

associated with the movement of marines from Okinawa be given 

the highest priority within the Department and that every effort be 

made to expedite these studies, consistent with applicable laws and 

regulations. 

As the realignment of U.S. forces in the Pacific Command area 

of responsibility continues to be formalized through plans and 

agreements with our allies, the committee should receive regular 

updates from the Department of Defense on the process, particularly with regard to costs, timelines, planning, and logistics of this 

critical endeavor. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary 

of Defense to ensure that the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and of the House of Representatives receive regular updates, at least once every 3 months, if not more often, on the cost 

and timelines associated with the realignment of marines on OkiVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
260 

nawa and on the environmental planning process for Guam, Australia, and Hawaii. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(261) 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $388.2 million for military construction and $581.7 million for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2013. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $355.2 billion for military construction and $581.7 million for family housing for fiscal year 2013. 

The committee notes that the budget request for the Air Force 

for military construction is considerably reduced this fiscal year. 

The Air Force has described this reduction as a ‘strategic pause’ in 

military construction. The committee is concerned that this reallocation of budget authority may endanger the Air Force’s ability 

to meet future military construction requirements. The budget requests $161.0 million for the second increment of 

the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) Replacement Facility at 

Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. The committee is concerned that 

initial contractor bids received for the construction of this facility 

far exceeded the government’s cost estimate and the congressional 

authorization of $564.0 million. 

The committee notes that in an era of budget austerity, the Department of Defense must ensure that only the most critical facility 

requirements needed to carry out the current missions are supported in new headquarters facilities. As the Department receives 

new bids for this facility, the committee is concerned that no critical facility requirements for U.S. STRATCOM be eliminated and 

that no costs are deferred to other funding streams; therefore, the 

committee directs the Department to submit an updated DD–1391 

form, along with current manning requirements for the facility, 

that captures the complete and usable project to be awarded for the 

amount previously authorized by Congress. 

The committee further notes that the Department will be unable 

to obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and 

therefore recommends a $33.0 million reduction. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Air 

Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2013. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction and planning and design of family housing units 

for the Air Force for fiscal year 2013. It would also authorize funds 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
262 

for facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2013 to improve existing Air Force family 

housing units. 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for construction 

for fiscal year 2013 in this Act. This provision would also provide 

an overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 

and family housing projects for the active-duty component of the 

Air Force. The State list contained in this report is the binding list 

of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 

projects (sec. 2305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2010 authorization for two projects until October 1, 

2013, or the date of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(263) 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$3.5 billion for military construction for the defense agencies, 

$150.0 million for energy conservation projects, $151.0 million for 

chemical demilitarization construction, and $54.0 million for family 

housing for the defense agencies, and the Family Housing Improvement Fund for fiscal year 2013. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$3.4 billion for military construction, $150.0 million for energy conservation projects, $151.0 million for chemical demilitarization construction, and $54.2 million for family housing for the defense 

agencies for fiscal year 2013. 

The budget requests $300.5 million for the second increment of 

the High Performance Computing Center at Fort Meade, Maryland. 

The committee understands that the National Security Agency 

(NSA) will be unable to obligate and expend the full amount of the 

budget request and therefore recommends a $75.0 million reduction. 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization provided last year for this project. The committee required the NSA to validate the cost of the project. The original 

budget request for the project was $860.5 million. This year’s request shows a reduction of approximately $68.3 million in the 

project’s value with no degradation in final performance or schedule. 

The budget requests $7.0 million for Base Installation Access/Appearance Plan at Bethesda Naval Hospital, Maryland. The supporting budget documents show that this requirement should be 

met with operations and maintenance funds and not military construction funds; therefore, the committee recommends this project 

be eliminated. 

The budget requests $207.4 million for the fourth increment of 

the Hospital Replacement at Fort Bliss, Texas. The committee understands that the Department will be unable to obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and therefore recommends a $100.0 million reduction. 

Subtitle A—Defense Agency Authorizations 

Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the defense agencies for fiscal 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
264 

year 2013. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation projects. 

Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 

2403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the military construction and family housing 

projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction for fiscal year 2013 in this Act. This provision would also provide an 

overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 

and family housing projects for the defense agencies. The State list 

contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects 

authorized at each location. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2010 

project (sec. 2404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization for a project until October 1, 2013, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for 

fiscal year 2014, whichever is later. This extension was requested 

by the Department of Defense. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2012 project (sec. 2405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

table in section 2401(a) of the Military Construction Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public Law 112–81; 125 

Stat. 1672), relating to Fort Meade, Maryland, by striking 

‘‘$29,640,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$792,200,000.’’ 

Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 

project (sec. 2406) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an 

Upgrade Fuel Pipeline at Andersen Air Force Base with certain 

limitations. 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations 

Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization 

construction, defense-wide (sec. 2411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the chemical demilitarization program for fiscal year 2013. The authorized amounts are listed on an 

installation-by-installation basis. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

1997 project (sec. 2412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

table in section 2401(a) of the Military Construction Authorization 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
265 

Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division B of Public Law 104–201; 110 

Stat. 2775), as amended. 

Item of Special Interest 

Excess overseas facilities for defense agencies 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense is in the 

process of reviewing U.S. military force posture in Europe and Asia 

with the intent of consolidating and aligning military forces to 

meet national security objectives in a fiscally constrained environment. 

The committee further notes that most of the attention and efforts to date have centered on the status and realignment of forces 

of the military departments even though the 16 major defense 

agencies of the Department maintain significant numbers of facilities and personnel overseas. The committee believes that a request 

by the Department of Defense for the authority to conduct a domestic Base Realignment and Closure round must be preceded by a 

comprehensive evaluation of opportunities to obtain efficiencies 

through the consolidation of the overseas operations of defense 

agencies and possible relocation back to the United States. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense, as the Chief Management Officer of the Department, to 

evaluate the feasibility and cost-savings that may be realized by 

closing overseas facilities and consolidating operations of the 16 defense agencies to existing facilities and installations within the 

United States. 

The committee further directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense 

to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than February 1, 2013, on the results of the review, including the 

projected personnel realignments, facilities maintenance, and facilities modernization costs and savings that could be achieved by consolidating overseas operations and possibly relocating those functions to facilities located in the United States. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(267) 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $254.2 million for military construction in fiscal year 2013 

for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization facilities. 

The committee recommends a total of $254.2 million for military 

construction for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization facilities. 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2501) 

The committee recommends a provision that 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 title and the amount of recoupment due to the United 

States for construction previously financed by the United States. 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations of $254.2 million for the United States’ contribution to 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2013. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(269) 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES 

FACILITIES 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropria- tions of $1.0 billion for military construction in fiscal year 2013 for 

facilities for the guard and reserve components. The committee recommends this amount. The detailed funding recommendations are 

contained in the State list table included in this report. 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of 

Appropriations 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army National Guard for fiscal year 2013. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-bylocation basis. 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal year 

2013. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location 

basis. 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 

Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2013. The authorized amounts are 

listed on a location-by-location basis. 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air National Guard for fiscal 

year 2013. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for fiscal 

year 2013. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
270 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the reserve component military construction 

projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2013 in this Act. 

This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount 

authorized for military construction projects for each of the reserve 

components of the military departments. The State list contained 

in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized 

at each location. 

Subtitle B—Other Matters 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2009 

project (sec. 2611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2009 authorization for a project until October 1, 2013, 

or the date of an act authorizing funds for military construction for 

fiscal year 2014, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2010 

projects (sec. 2612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2010 authorization for three projects until October 1, 

2013, or the date of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(271) 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND 

CLOSURE ACTIVITIES 

Summary and explanation of tables 

The budget request included $349.3 million for the ongoing cost 

of environmental remediation and other activities necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds. 

In addition, the budget requested an authorization of appropria- tions of $126.7 million for implementation of the 2005 BRAC 

round. 

The committee recommends funding at these levels. 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and 

closure activities funded through Department of Defense base closure account 1990 (sec. 2701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 

1995 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and 

closure activities funded through Department of Defense base closure account 2005 (sec. 2702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for military construction projects for fiscal year 2013 

that are required to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round. The table included in this title of the 

report lists the specific amounts authorized at each location. 

Technical amendments to section 2702 of fiscal year 2012 

Act (sec. 2703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make a technical amendment and a conforming amendment to section 2702 of 

the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

(division B of Public Law 112–81; 125 Stat. 1681). 

Criteria for decisions involving certain base closure and realignment activities (sec. 2704) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Comptroller General to develop objective criteria to be used by the 

Department of Defense to make decisions relating to realignments 

of units employed at military installations that are not currently 

covered by section 2687 of title 10, United States Code. 

The provision would also include a 1-year moratorium on implementing any realignment that would result in a military installation covered under section 2687 to no longer be covered by section 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
272 

2687. This moratorium could be waived by the Secretary of Defense 

if he certifies that the action is in the national security interests 

of the United States. 

Item of Special Interest 

Government Accountability Office review of the systems 

and processes that the Department uses to identify the 

extent to which bases or facilities are excess to needs 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has requested authorization 

for base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds in 2013 and 2015. 

In justifying this request, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

for Installations and Environment, Dorothy Robyn, testified in 

March 2012, that ‘‘given the cost of our installation infrastructure, 

we cannot afford to maintain excess capacity. Parametric techniques used to analyze various capacity measures in 2004 indicated 

that the Department had 24 percent excess capacity overall relative 

to force structure plans developed by the Joint Staff. . . . Because 

BRAC 2005 eliminated only about three percent of the Department’s capacity, we believe we have significant excess capacity 

today.’’ 

The committee is concerned about the adequacy of the processes 

that DOD uses to determine excess infrastructure capacity based 

on a variety of conflicting statements from senior departmental officials. 

Senior Army officials have been quoted as stating that the Army 

has no interest in another BRAC round. Yet, recent briefings to the 

committee suggest that the Army does have excess capacity. 

Senior Air Force officers have been quoted as saying that the Air 

Force has too many bases thus suggesting the need for a BRAC 

round and yet the Service did not propose many significant base 

closures when it had the authority to propose such closures in 

BRAC 2005. 

A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report raises 

additional questions about the extent to which DOD actually knows 

how much excess capacity exists. Specifically, in Excess Facilities: 

DOD Needs More Complete Information and a Strategy to Guide 

Its Future Disposal Efforts (GAO–11–814) the GAO reported that 

the Air Force reported a utilization rate of 0 percent for 22,563 

buildings that were in an active status, DOD reported utilization 

rates for 32,999 facilities to the Federal Real Property Profile even 

though DOD’s database which is the authoritative source of this information had no utilization information for these facilities, and 

DOD officials acknowledged an inability to accurately identify vacant and underutilized real property. 

Finally, the GAO reported in Defense Infrastructure: Army 

Needs to Improve Its Facility Planning Systems to Better Support 

Installations Experiencing Significant Growth (GAO–10–602) that 

the Army planned to spend about $31.0 billion through fiscal year 

2015 to meet facility needs but would still have shortages of some 

types of facilities thus raising questions about whether closing 

bases is the right strategy for coping with shortages of facilities. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a review of the systems and processes that DOD uses to identify the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
273 

extent to which bases or facilities are excess to needs. This review 

shall address the following: 

(1) How DOD identifies bases or other infrastructure that 

are excess to its needs; 

(2) How well integrated DOD’s force structure planning processes are with its base infrastructure planning processes; 

(3) To what extent concerns raised in prior GAO reports 

about the ability of DOD to accurately identify its utilization 

of bases and facilities have been addressed; and 

(4) Any additional matters that the Comptroller General determines to be relevant. 

The Comptroller General shall report the results of his study to 

the congressional defense committees by May 7, 2013. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(275) 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military 

Family Housing Changes 

Authorized cost and scope variations (sec. 2801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the authorizations for scope variations in military construction and family housing projects. 

The committee is extremely concerned by recent discoveries that 

contracts for the construction of Department of Defense (DOD) facilities resulted in military construction projects that exceeded the 

scope of work authorized by Congress. The committee was notified 

on April 30, 2012, that nine Army National Guard projects in various states of construction would result in facilities that will exceed 

the size specifically authorized by Congress in past National Defense Authorization Acts. Army National Guard representatives attributed the violations to ‘‘human error’’ and requested immediate 

legislative action to authorize the higher scope in order to preclude 

delays to the construction of the facilities. 

In addition, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense 

(DODIG) released a report on February 27, 2012, titled ’’Guidance 

Needed to Prevent Military Construction Projects From Exceeding 

the Approved Scope of Work (Report No. DODIG–2012–057)’’ which 

found that the design process for three military construction 

projects did not result in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Air 

Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) officials constructing facilities in accordance with facility sizes on the 

congressional request for authorization. Additionally, AFCEE officials improperly authorized the construction of facilities for one 

project, because they did not conduct scope verifications and perform proper contract administration. As a result, AFCEE officials 

improperly authorized the expenditure of at least $3.3 million. 

The DODIG concluded that ‘‘this occurred because the scope of 

work variations permissible by section 2853, title 10, United States 

Code, from the congressional request for authorization are unclear 

and inconsistently applied.’’ As a result, Department of Defense officials do not have assurances that military construction projects 

are built consistent with congressional intent and in accordance 

with legislative requirements. 

The committee expects that the Department of Defense has guidance and regulations in place to ensure compliance with military 

construction statutes and to ensure hundreds of military construction projects authorized each year are carried out consistent with 

congressional intent. Therefore, the committee directs the SecVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00297 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
276 

retary of Defense to incorporate the clarifications of section 2853 

imposed by this provision into current Department regulations and 

to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not 

later than March 1, 2013, describing clear, concise, and comprehensive guidance and processes established with the Department to 

preclude any human errors from resulting in a violation of law. 

Comptroller General report on in-kind payments (sec. 2802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report on the 

construction or renovation of Department of Defense facilities with 

in-kind payments. 

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation 

and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside the United States (sec. 2803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize 

contingency contracting authority in certain areas outside the 

United States for one more year. 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration 

Authority to accept as consideration for leases of non-excess 

property of military departments and defense agencies 

real property interests and natural resource management services related to agreements to limit encroachment (sec. 2811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to allow the authorities 

available under the enhanced use lease program to be used to develop buffer areas around military installations to help prevent 

land uses that are incompatible with military operations and to 

preserve the environment under the Readiness and Environmental 

Protection Initiative codified in section 2684a of title 10, United 

States Code. 

Clarification of parties with whom Department of Defense 

may conduct exchanges of real property at military installations (sec. 2812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify with 

whom the Department of Defense may conduct exchanges of real 

property at military installations. 

Subtitle C—Energy Security 

Guidance on financing for renewable energy projects (sec. 

2821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to issue guidance for financing renewable 

energy projects. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
277 

Continuation of limitation on use of funds for Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) gold or platinum certification (sec. 2822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

prohibition on the use of funds for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) gold or platinum certification until 6 

months after the report required in section 2830(b)(1) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division 

B of Public Law 112–81; 125 Stat. 1695) is submitted. 

Prohibition on biofuel refinery construction (sec. 2823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Department of Defense from entering into a contract to plan, design, or construct a biofuel refinery or any other facility or infrastructure used to refine biofuels unless such planning, design, or 

construction is specifically authorized by law. 

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances 

Land conveyance, local training area for Browning Army 

Reserve Center, Utah (sec. 2831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

conveyance of real property at Browning Army Reserve Center, 

Utah. 

Use of proceeds, land conveyance, Tyndall Air Force Base, 

Florida (sec. 2832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorities for use of proceeds of a land conveyance at Tyndall Air 

Force Base, Florida. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Clarification of authority of Secretary to assist with development of public infrastructure in connection with the 

establishment or expansion of a military installation 

(sec. 2841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require specific authorization of any grant, cooperative agreement, or supplement of funds available under federal programs administered by 

agencies other than the Department of Defense that result in the 

development of public infrastructure. 

Petersburg National Battlefield boundary modification (sec. 

2842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

boundary of the Petersburg National Battlefield. 

Congressional notification with respect to oversight and 

maintenance of base cemeteries following closure of 

overseas military installations (sec. 2843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require notification with respect to oversight and maintenance of base cemeteries following the closure of overseas military installations. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(278) 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations 

Overview 

Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy defense 

activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2013, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 

equipment; research and development; nuclear weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses necessary to carry 

out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act 

(Public Law 95–91). This title authorizes appropriations in three 

categories: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA); 

(2) defense environmental cleanup; and (3) other defense activities. 

The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at the 

Department (rounded up to the first significant decimal point) totaled $17.9 billion. Of the total amount requested: (1) $11.6 billion is for NNSA, of which: 

(a) $7.6 billion is for weapons activities; 

(b) $2.5 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities; (c) $1.1 billion is for naval reactors; and 

(d) $411.3 million is for the Office of the Administrator; 

(2) $5.5 billion is for defense environmental cleanup; and 

(3) $830.7 million is for other defense activities. 

The committee recommends $17.4 billion for atomic energy defense activities. Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends: 

(1) $11.5 billion for NNSA, of which; 

(a) $7.6 billion is for weapons activities; 

(b) $2.5 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities; (c) $1.2 billion is for naval reactors; and 

(d) $386.3 million is for the Office of the Administrator; 

(2) $5.0 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities; 

and 

(3) $828.7 million for other defense activities. 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

total of $11.5 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in fiscal 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
279 

year 2013 for the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) to carry out programs necessary to national security. 

Weapons activities 

The committee recommends $7.6 billion for weapons activities. 

The committee recommends funding for these programs as fol- lows: $2.1 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.7 billion for campaigns; $2.2 billion for readiness in the technical base and facilities; $219.4 million for the secure transportation asset; $247.6 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response; $88.3 million 

for site stewardship; $643.3 million for safeguards and security; 

and $10.0 million for national security applications. 

The committee notes that notwithstanding the congressional support for further modernization of the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure and the life extension programs, the committee urges 

the NNSA to find efficiencies where and whenever possible. The 

ability to sustain these increases during a time of decreasing federal and defense budgets will be increasingly difficult as time goes 

on. Good stewardship of the funding, as well as the nuclear weapons and the nuclear weapons complex, is critical to the long-term 

support for and sustainment of the projected increases. 

Directed stockpile work 

The committee recommends $2.1 billion for directed stockpile 

work. The directed stockpile account supports work directly related 

to weapons in the stockpile, including day-to-day maintenance as 

well as research, development, engineering, and certification activities to support planned life extension programs. This account also 

includes fabrication and assembly of weapons components, feasibility studies, weapons dismantlement and disposal, training, and 

support equipment. 

The committee understands that for fiscal year 2013, the W–76 program was lowered by some $79,000,000 relative to fiscal year 

2013 budgetary estimates in the fiscal year 2012 budget submission in order to pay for the increased costs of the B–61 refurbishment. The reduced funding of the W–76 has led to a change in the 

mix of active verses hedge warheads delivered to the Navy by the 

Pantex plant. The result is that now only active warheads are to 

be delivered with hedge warheads in the out years after the submarine fleet has been refurbished. Testimony before the committee 

had indicated that the Navy, while concerned with this new delivery schedule, can accommodate the increased risk to the submarine 

fleet. It is the committee’s understanding that for fiscal year 2013, 

the NNSA has actually underfunded the W–76 program such that 

it cannot even deliver the needed active warheads to the submarine 

fleet. After inquiries to the NNSA on which adjustments to budget 

lines must be made to accommodate for this error, the committee 

is told that the NNSA will not know what to adjust until they have 

a full cost estimate of the B–61 phase 2A study completed this 

summer, leading to a cascade of re-programming requests to Congress, all the while the Navy submarine fleet is left uncertain if 

this error will affect their home port maintenance schedules. The 

committee recommends an increase of $25,000,000 to the W–76 Directed Stockpile line taken from the NNSA Office of the AdminisVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00301 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
280 

trator line, which the committee understands is to be used for network integration. 

Campaigns 

The committee recommends $1.8 billion for campaigns. The campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts involving the three 

nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada National Security Site, 

and the weapons production plants. Each campaign is focused on 

a specific activity to support and maintain the nuclear stockpile 

without underground nuclear weapons testing. These efforts form 

the scientific underpinning of the Department of Energy’s annual 

certification that the stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable 

without nuclear weapons testing. 

The committee remains concerned about the hurdles to ignition 

at the National Ignition Facility (NIF), which is still several orders 

of magnitude below the stated energy level to achieve it. The committee recognizes that the NIF has numerous other stockpile, defense related and non-defense related, missions and that important 

research remains to be done in these other areas. However, none 

rise to the level as understanding the physics of ignition for stockpile stewardship. The NNSA must strike a careful balance of ensuring there is still focus on this objective within the limited funding allocated for the machine and must not let lack of achieving ignition in the short-term cause long-term drifting to other missions 

to justify the funding. 

The committee recognizes the importance of having a domestic 

source for enriched uranium using U.S. technology to meet our Nation’s future tritium requirements to ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal consistent with the fiscal year 

2013 budget request. 

The 2012 Stockpile Stewardship and Management plan defines 

the elements of the stockpile stewardship program including the 

careful planning that goes into designing and developing the 

science, technology, and engineering (STE) program. The STE program provides the physics based understanding needed to predict 

performance of various weapons components to support the life extension and surveillance programs. As stated in the report: ‘‘these 

[STE capabilities] determine what can be engineered and the spectrum of changes that can be confidently assessed without UGT [underground testing.]’’ Two of the key elements of the STE program 

are the Predictive Capability Framework (PCF) and the Component 

Maturation Framework (CMF). Each of these frameworks have a 

detailed, complementary 15-year plan. The PCF plan carefully balances the four key components of weapons assessment with the development of experimental and computation capabilities. The CMF 

develops the components needed for life extension based on the development of the knowledge and predicative capabilities derived 

from the PCF. As the plan states: ‘‘These strategies are coupled because the CMF includes the maturation plans for development and 

production of stockpile sustainment components. PCF provides the 

tools and capabilities for establishing the environments that those 

components will witness and the qualification of those components 

in meeting performance specifications.’’ 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
281 

Readiness in the technical base 

The committee recommends $2.4 billion for readiness in the technical base (RTBF). This account funds facilities and infrastructure 

in the nuclear weapons complex and includes construction funding 

for new facilities. 

The committee is concerned about the additional increase of 

$150,000,000 added to the budget for replacing building 9212 at 

the Y–12 plant. The committee is fully supportive of replacing 

building 9212 and building a Uranium Processing Facility. However, the committee understands that the Y–12 plant was not formally notified of the increase until February 13, 2012, the same 

day the deferral of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement building was announced to Los Alamos. The way the 

NNSA announced this decision leads the committee to believe that 

this additional funding was made in haste. The structure of the 

contract to build the facility is now changing from integrated product design leading to final construction, to one of ‘‘design build’’ 

where the building is built first to show progress and then subcontracts are let from the main contractor to back fill the equipment and processes, which are inherently complicated. The committee notes that the ‘‘design build’’ concept was used at the Waste 

Treatment Project at Hanford, and is considered one of the largest 

cost overruns in the Department of Energy’s history. Not more 

than $190,000,000 may be spent on project 06–D–141 (the amount 

identified for fiscal year 2013 in the fiscal year 2012 budget submission) until the NNSA reaches a 90-percent engineering design 

phase and submits to the congressional defense committees CD–2 

baseline information and the structure of the contract to build and 

equip the Uranium Processing Facility. 

With the proposed cancellation of the Chemistry and Metallurgy 

Research Replacement (CMRR) building, the NNSA has proposed 

an alternative plutonium strategy. This alternative strategy concerns the committee. 

A good rule of thumb with plutonium is that its operations are 

centralized in one place. The committee’s understanding is that the 

NNSA will de-inventory the Plutonium Facility (PF)–4 building at 

Los Alamos where plutonium operations occur and store the plutonium at the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) at the Nevada National Security Site, which is 663 miles and more than 10 hours 

away from the PF–4. The committee understands that DAF needs 

upgrades to its safety systems for a material that is inherently 

exothermic in air. The committee understands that plutonium testing and operations at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

will be reinstated—after the NNSA has told Congress they have 

saved money by lowering the security posture there and told the 

local communities that they have de-inventoried the laboratory of 

plutonium. The committee understands that the NNSA is increasing the quantity of plutonium at the Radiological Laboratory Office 

Building (RLOUB) at Los Alamos, which is designed for small 

amounts of plutonium for radio-chemistry purposes (up to 26 

grams) and questions what, if anything, increasing the quantity at 

RLOUB for analytical chemistry purposes gives towards helping 

the process flow issues inside PF–4 at Los Alamos where large 

quantities (kilograms) of plutonium are handled. There is a large 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
282 

excavation next to PF–4 where the CMRR Nuclear Facility 

(CMRR–NF) was to be built, the committee would like to know how 

the NNSA plans to maintain such a large excavation next to PF– 

4 when it plans to defer CMRR–NF ‘‘for at least 5 years’’. Finally 

there is the issue of a tunnel connecting PF–4 to RLOUB, which 

must go past the large excavation for the CMRR–NF to help expedite the flow of small samples. This tunnel is larger than that from 

CMRR–NF to PF–4. The committee’s understanding is the deferral 

of CMRR–NF will lead to in some cases a loss of materials characterization and materials compatibility tests for larger test samples 

of plutonium that cannot be duplicated elsewhere. Some of these 

capabilities, such as crystal growth, may be impossible to recreate 

elsewhere. 

Once it learned of the proposed cancellation, the committee asked 

the Department of Defense (DOD) if the requirement for 50–80 pits 

a year was still valid and was told it was. How will transporting 

plutonium across the U.S. to different NNSA facilities be any more 

safe and secure and cost less than CMRR–NF adjacent to PF–4? 

The committee also understands that without CMRR–NF, no plan 

exists for meeting the DOD requirements. 

The committee finds that the alternative plutonium strategy could cost upwards of $1.0 billion to delay the CMRR–NF by ‘‘at 

least 5 years’’ resulting if built, a 25–30 percent increase in the 

CMRR–NF cost or about another $2.0 billion. Unknown is the cost 

to re-start the CMRR–NF project or how the regulatory structure 

5 or more years from now will have changed. The net result of this 

deferral is a cost escalation of some $3.0 billion to the taxpayer 

with even more uncertainty on the Nation’s plutonium strategy 

much less ensuring Los Alamos can retain the unique expertise 

and scientists it has had since the Manhattan Project to handle 

this vital national mission. If CMRR–NF is not built, the alternative plutonium strategy will simply shift increased pit costs from 

not using a single facility into future life extension programs in the 

out years. 

Given the magnitude of the consequences of the alternative plutonium proposal by the NNSA, the committee directs the Government Accountability Office, on an expedited basis, to review the 

NNSA’s proposed plutonium strategy to determine relative to the 

CMRR–NF whether (1) it is safer than if CMRR–NF were started 

on its original schedule and if not, what are the added risks to public health and safety, (2) what is the added cost in addition to the 

deferral of CMRR–NF, especially to future life extension programs, 

(3) what burden will be placed on PF–4 in terms of process flow 

and ability to meet the DOD requirement (as compared to starting 

CMRR–NF on its original schedule), (4) what is the estimated cost 

and time of building an entirely new facility accomplishing both the 

functions of CMRR–NF and PF–4 at the least costly location in the 

NNSA complex, and (5) what would be the impact on the plutonium science mission at Los Alamos. The committee requests this 

study no later than January 31, 2013. 

The committee is supportive of the High Explosives Pressing Facility at Pantex and encourages the NNSA to make this facility a 

center of excellence in the NNSA for high explosives pressing and 

manufacturing. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
283 

Secure transportation asset 

The committee recommends $219.4 million for the secure transportation asset (STA). The secure transportation asset is responsible for the transportation of nuclear weapons, weapons materials, 

and components, and other materials requiring safe and secure 

transport. If the STA resumes consideration of a third-party leasing option, the committee expects STA to fully notify Congress of 

such arrangements in advance of executing any leases. 

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response 

The committee recommends $247.6 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response. 

Site stewardship 

The committee recommends $90.0 million for site stewardship. 

Safeguards and security 

The committee recommends $643.3 million for safeguards and security. 

National security applications 

The committee recommends $10.0 million for national security 

applications. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs 

The committee recommends $2.6 billion for the Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation program. The NNSA has management and oversight responsibility for the nuclear nonproliferation programs at 

the DOE. 

The committee recommends funding for these programs as follows: $548.2 million for nonproliferation and verification research 

and development (R&D), which includes $150,000 for urnanium enrichment R&D; $150.1 million for nonproliferation and international security; $311.0 million for international nuclear materials 

production and cooperation; $92.3 million for fissile materials disposition; and $466.0 million for the global threat reduction initiative. 

Nonproliferation and verification research and development 

The committee recommends $548.2 million for nonproliferation 

and verification research and development. The committee requests 

a 5 year road map for the nuclear detonation detection mission as 

integrated with the Department of Defense no later than January 

31, 2013. 

The committee continues to support the valuable research and 

development work that is conducted under this program. The additional funding will support high priority research requirements including work to support the long-term ability of the United States 

to monitor and detect clandestine nuclear weapons development activity, and to attribute nuclear weapons, improvised nuclear devices, and radiological dispersal devices. Much of the work supported by NNSA is unique to the Federal Government and serves 

as the technical basis for work by many other agencies including 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
284 

the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. 

Nonproliferation and international security 

The committee recommends $150.1 million for nonproliferation 

and international security. The committee recommends bringing 

the Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program in Russia to a close at the end of 2012. 

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation 

The committee recommends $311.0 million for international nuclear materials protection and cooperation. 

Fissile materials disposition 

The committee recommends $921.3 million for fissile materials 

disposition. This fissile materials disposition program converts excess weapons grade plutonium to mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for use 

in commercial power reactors. The United States and Russia have 

signed an agreement where each country has agreed to the disposition of 34 metric tons of excess weapons grade plutonium, thus removing the possibility that this plutonium could be reused for 

weapons or fall into the hands of terrorists. The committee has 

learned of another adjustment to the baseline of this program due 

in the summer of 2012, which has already grown substantially over 

the past 13 years, in addition to the cancellation of the feedstock 

facility after $700,000,000 has been spent in various stages of design. The committee expects to be fully informed of this baseline 

adjustment. The committee directs the NNSA to report to the congressional defense committees a roadmap over the life of the program on how the NNSA will supply the 34 metric tons of feedstock 

to the MOX facility noting the capacity and lifetime of each facility 

to prepare feedstock with a detailed cost estimate in the first 15- 

year window. The report must take into account recent decisions at 

the PF–4 facility and CMRR–NF. This report is due no later than 

December 31, 2012. The committee also understands the MOX facility is before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for license. The 

committee directs the development of a quarterly update reporting 

system be established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) to the congressional defense committees, with the first report due September 30, 2012, advising the committees on the status of license review as well as its fuel forms, identifying issues of 

concern to the NRC. The committee also understands the estimated 

operating costs for the MOX facility are increasing and directs the 

NNSA report to the congressional defense committees by July 30, 

2012, a historical review of the estimated operating costs of the 

MOX facility to understand the cost growth and trend. 

Global threat reduction initiative 

The committee recommends $566.0 million for the global threat 

reduction initiative. The committee supports this effort to secure 

within 4 years, vulnerable nuclear material that could be used in 

a dirty bomb or in an improvised nuclear device. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
285 

Naval reactors 

The committee recommends $1.1 billion for naval reactors, including a $37.9 million increase above the budget request for the 

Ohio-class replacement reactor program. This program was decreased by $70.0 million relative to the fiscal year 2012 budget projection for fiscal year 2013. The committee notes that the Naval Reactors program is under strong pressure in the 5-year budget profile to meet its design specifications for the Ohio-class replacement 

reactor and recommends that the NNSA support any necessary 

changes needed to the Ohio-class reactor replacement program to 

ensure it is properly synchronized with the main submarine program which has slipped by 2 years. The committee remains concerned by the 2-year delay of the Ohio-class replacement program, 

and directs Naval Reactors to deviate as little as possible from the 

schedule identified in the fiscal year 2012 budget. The committee 

understands the replacement for the Idaho fuel cooling pool has 

slipped by 2 years as well and requests no later than July 31, 2012, 

a status update on this effort. 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

three new plant projects for the Department of Energy, Naval Reactors that are in the fiscal year 2013 budget request. The first 

project, 13–D–903, at the Kesselring Site, West Milton, New York, 

will build a staff building for handling the increased number of 

trainees at the Kesselring Site Prototype Training Reactor. The 

second project, 13–D–904, will build additional radiological workspace for the overhaul of the Prototype Training Reactor at the 

Kesselring Site. The third project, 13–D–905, will develop a low 

level waste disposal site at the Idaho National Laboratory where 

Naval Reactors examine spent naval fuel. 

Office of the Administrator 

The committee recommends $386.3 million for the Office of the 

Administrator, this represents a $25,000,000 decrease due to transfer of funds to the weapons activities account for information technology and networks. An equivalent amount of funding 

($25,000,000) was then added back into the Administrator’s account leading to in-effect a double counting. 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$5.0 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at the Department of Energy (DOE) but does not as in past years, include 

the $463,000,000 request for the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund (section 1801 of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954 (Public Law 83–703), as amended) whose authorization expired in 2007. The fiscal year 2013 budget assumption for the $463,000,000 requires legislation to be adopted outside 

the jurisdiction of this committee. The defense environmental 

cleanup activities support the cleanup of contaminated facilities, 

soil, ground, and surface water, and the treatment and disposal of 

radioactive and other waste generated through the production of 

nuclear weapons and weapons materials. The environmental management program was established in 1989 to clean up 50 years of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
286 

Cold War waste from the production of nuclear weapons and materials including plutonium and highly enriched uranium. 

Savannah River Site 

The committee recommends $1.2 billion for the Savannah River 

Site. The committee commends the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Office of Environmental Management for continuing operations at the H-Canyon, which is the only large scale 

reprocessing line left in the United States. Past experience has 

shown that the H-Canyon will be needed as new waste streams 

evolve and as the National Nuclear Security Administration continues to receive returned highly enriched uranium research reactor fuels. The committee requests a 10-year roadmap for the HCanyon usage due no later than January 31, 2013. 

Waste Treatment Plant 

The committee continues to follow the progress at the Waste 

Treatment Plant at the DOE Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. The August 2011 review of the project found that it will 

likely exceed by $900,000,000 the current total cost estimate of 

$12.3 billion and now that it is nearing initial operations, attention 

should be turned towards integration of the tank farms and the 

plant itself as well as adjusting staffing towards operational personnel. The report recommended a $350,000,000 phased CD–4 approach. The committee directs the Department of Energy to provide 

to the congressional defense committees the outcome of this phased 

CD–4 approach no later than July 30, 2012, of efforts to integrate 

the tank farm and waste treatment plant contracts as well as any 

change to the total baseline cost of the project. 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$828.7 million for other defense activities. The committee recommends $245.5 million for health and safety; $188.6 million for 

security; $177.9 million for Legacy Management; $118.8 million for 

departmental administration; and $4.8 million for the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals. 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Replacement project for Chemistry and Metallurgy Research building, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New 

Mexico (sec. 3111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA) to construct a building to replace 

the functions of the existing Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 

building at Los Alamos National Laboratory associated with Department of Energy (DOE) Hazard Category 2 special nuclear material operations. 

The committee is strongly concerned with the budget proposal to 

defer ‘‘by at least 5 years’’ the replacement project for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
287 

(CMRR–NF) building at Los Alamos National Laboratory, New 

Mexico. 

A deferral ‘‘for at least 5 years’’ appears to be a cancellation. 

Based on the analysis the committee has received to date, it appears that such a cancellation would have an adverse impact on 

nuclear modernization programs. 

The 2009 report ‘‘America’s Strategic Posture’’, chaired by former 

Secretaries of Defense, William Perry and James Schlesinger, recognized the significance of the CMRR project not because it was 

tied to a military number of pits but because it ‘‘makes a direct 

contribution to the intellectual infrastructure that is in immediate 

danger of attrition’’. They wisely noted that ‘‘because the future 

size of the stockpile is uncertain, projects that are independent of 

the stockpile size should take priority. The uranium production facility’s (building 9212 at Y–12) size is influenced by stockpile size 

. . . . The Los Alamos plutonium facility is required independent 

of stockpile size.’’ They go further stating that, ‘‘These considerations lead the commission to the conclusion that, if priority must 

be given, the Los Alamos plutonium facility should receive it.’’ The 

point is that while today we are focused on CMRR–NF because the 

Department of Defense (DOD) states it has a pit need in the range 

of 50–80 by 2025, the fundamental reason CMRR–NF is needed is 

to maintain our Nation’s ability to conduct continuous research 

with kilogram quantities of plutonium. A DOE Hazard Category 2 

facility, such as CMRR–NF, was planned to be necessary to make 

a wide range of bulk mechanical measurements on pit behavior to 

ensure that even as pit aging occurs, we can be sure that the stockpile will continue to be safe, secure, and militarily effective. 

In a February 2, 2011, message from the President to the Senate 

on the New START Treaty, the President stated that he intends to 

‘‘(a) accelerate to the extent possible, the design and engineering 

phase of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement 

(CMRR) building and the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF); and 

(b) request full funding, including on a multi-year basis as appropriate, for the CMRR building and the UPF upon completion of the 

design and engineering phase for such facilities.’’ 

The committee believes that the linkage between nuclear modernization and the New START Treaty’s implementation is clearly 

established. 

In 2010, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) concerning modernization of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure. In this MOA, DOD 

agreed to work with the Office of Management and Budget to 

transfer budget authority for NNSA’s nuclear weapons and Naval 

Reactor programs. DOE agreed to use this transferred budget authority to supplement NNSA funding for among other things completing the design and beginning construction of the CMRR–NF facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The committee understands that DOD is providing the resources agreed to under the 

MOA and commends DOD for its commitment to the modernization 

of the nuclear weapons complex. The committee is disappointed in 

DOE’s failure to comply with its previously agreed to obligations, 

and directs NNSA to provide the committee by September 30, 2012, 

a full accounting of the budget authority DOD is giving to DOE 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
288 

and a detailed description at the account level of the NNSA programs directly impacted through the transfer of DOD’s budget authority. 

The committee authorizes $150.0 million of the amounts appropriated in fiscal year 2013 for the construction of the CMRR–NF 

facility and prohibits NNSA from reducing amounts authorized and 

appropriated for directed stockpile work, naval reactors, or Facility 

Project 06–D–141, Project Engineering & Design, Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for this purpose. 

The committee expresses concern with the overall projected cost 

of the CMRR–NF facility and therefore directs that the facility 

meet the requirements identified in the April 2010 MOA regarding 

capabilities but that funding for the facility shall not exceed $3.7 

billion. The practicability of implementing the design and construction of the facility shall focus on the costs and benefits as well as 

technical and economic feasibility of every major design characteristic that drives cost. The committee stresses the importance 

of the affordability of CMRR and strongly believes that a $3.7 billion cost ceiling is sufficient. The committee notes that One World 

Trade Center in New York City, which when complete will be the 

tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, is estimated to cost 

$3.9 billion. The committee believes both CMRR–NF and the UPF 

at Y–12 can be built affordably and directs the administration to 

achieve the cost savings necessary, so that the cost of CMRR–NF 

does not exceed the statutorily imposed cost ceiling. 

The committee is disappointed in the lack of transparency displayed by NNSA in its fiscal year 2013 budget deliberation process. 

It is evident that the level of rigor and due diligence necessary for 

a proposal as significant as the proposed deferral of CMRR–NF did 

not take place between NNSA and the national security laboratories, NNSA and the Department of Defense, and NNSA and Congress. Not until after the budget was released did NNSA seek input 

from the national laboratories on the cost and practicality of employing a new plutonium strategy. Furthermore, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, General Robert 

Kehler, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command testified that 

NNSA’s fiscal year 2013 budget concerned him. According to General Kehler’s testimony, ‘‘the thing that concerns me the most is 

our continued investment in the weapons complex. And so the issue 

with CMRR–NF does concern me.’’ 

Elsewhere in this bill, the committee proposes to strengthen the 

oversight performed by the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC). That 

provision would require the NWC to certify that the budget request 

meets nuclear stockpile and stockpile stewardship program requirements and seeks to prevent future instances where the Department 

of Defense and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command are 

presented a budget that does not meet strategic requirements or 

national policy. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
289 

Submittal to Congress of selected acquisition reports and 

independent cost estimates on nuclear weapon systems 

undergoing life extension (sec. 3112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

National Nuclear Security Administration to provide selected acquisition reports on each nuclear weapon system undergoing life 

extension. The reports shall be based on existing provisions in section 2432 of title 10, United States Code. The provision also recommends independent cost estimates for nuclear weapons undergoing life extension at the completion of phase 6.2A and before entering Phase 6.5, first production. 

Two year extension of schedule for disposition of weaponsusable plutonium at Savannah River Site, Aiken, South 

Carolina (sec. 3113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 4306 of the Atomic Defense Energy Act (50 U.S.C. 2566) to extend the dates at which the Department of Energy must pay the 

State of South Carolina economic impact and assistance funds by 

2 years so that it must be able to produce 1 metric ton of Mixed 

Oxide fuel by January 1, 2014, and 34 metric tons by January 1, 

2021. 

Program on science engagement for nonproliferation (sec. 

3114) 

The committee proposes a provision that would authorize a program for scientific engagement of U.S. scientists with scientists in 

countries of concern with respect to nonproliferation. Such a program could bring insight and transparency into the ability of a 

country to adhere to international nonproliferation norms. Several 

conditions are placed on this program before any expenditure of 

funds: (1) a nonproliferation threat assessment of the country by 

the Director of National Intelligence; (2) clear metrics for success 

so that the program does not become stagnant in the country of 

concern; and (3) rigorous accounting standards approved by the 

Government Accountability Office to ensure that there is clear 

oversight of the funds expended. Items (1) and (2) must be performed again when the program transitions to another country. 

This overall program must demonstrate that it does not duplicate 

other nonproliferation efforts in the rest of the Executive Branch 

through a report to Congress due within 180 days of enactment of 

this Act. 

Repeal of requirement for annual update of Department of 

Energy defense nuclear facilities workforce restructuring plan (sec. 3115) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal an annual reporting requirement of section 4604 of the Atomic Energy 

Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 27074). Since fiscal year 2005, the Department of Energy has neither requested nor received funding for enhanced severance benefits and community transition under section 

4604. Given the absence of funding there is no need for the annual 

reporting requirement. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
290 

Quarterly reports to Congress on financial balances for 

atomic energy defense activities (sec. 3116) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

Atomic Energy Defense Act (division D of Public Law 107–314) to 

require the Secretary of Energy to provide to the congressional defense committees quarterly obligation and expenditure rates for 

atomic energy defense programs based on the control points of the 

conference report accompanying the annual Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This provision 

would cover both the National Nuclear Security Administration 

and the Department of Energy’s Environmental Management Office (former defense sites). The committee understands that the Department currently provides these reports to the Appropriations 

committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives and requests access to that same level of information necessary for effective oversight. 

Transparency in contractor performance evaluations by the 

National Nuclear Security Administration leading to 

award fees (sec. 3117) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to 

publish to the maximum extent practicable the performance evaluations developed by its site offices that result in award fees to the 

contractor. The provision also requires that future performance 

evaluations adhere to a common format so that Congress and the 

public can compare these evaluations between similar management 

contracts. 

Expansion of authority to establish certain scientific, engineering, and technical positions (sec. 3118) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3241 of the National Nuclear Security Act (50 U.S.C. 2441) by 

increasing the ability of the Administrator to hire up to 700 contracting, scientific, engineering, and technical positions under hiring authorities used by the former Atomic Energy Commission (42 

U.S.C. 2201(d)). This provision would only provide for additional 

hiring flexibility and would not result in an increase in the total 

number of authorized employees. Such authorities are also used by 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has been rated one of 

the best places to work in the Federal Government. 

Modification and extension of authority on acceptance of 

contributions for acceleration of removal or security of 

fissile materials, radiological materials, and related 

equipment at vulnerable sites worldwide (sec. 3119) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 

authority of the Secretary of Energy under section 3132(f) of the 

Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) for the Secretary to accept contributions from international partners to all programs within the 

National Nuclear Security Administration’s Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
291 

Cost containment for Y–12 Uranium Processing Facility, Y– 

12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 

(sec. 3120) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add enhanced 

oversight of the Uranium Processing Facility construction project 

by requiring separate and distinct authorizations for each phase of 

the project. 

The Uranium Processing Facility project was first proposed as a 

formal construction project in the fiscal year 2006 budget request 

of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The ‘‘preliminary’’ estimate for the project at that time was between 

$600,000,000 to $1,000,000,000. The cost estimate in the fiscal year 

2013 budget request is now $6,500,000,000, an increase of at least 

650 percent. 

The committee understands that the project will now be broken 

into three phases. The first phase involves replacing Building 9212. 

The second phase involves replacing Buildings 9215 and 9998, 

which perform uranium metal working, machining, and inspection. 

The third phase involves replacing Building 9204–2E, which performs radiography, assembly, disassembly, and inspection of nuclear warhead components. The committee understands that the 

final cost estimate, which is to be completed in early 2013, will only 

be for replacing the functions of Building 9212. Building 9212 was 

built during the Manhattan Project and by all accounts needs to be 

replaced given its poor condition and the critical functions it performs in purifying and casting uranium components. 

The committee understands the programmatic need for breaking 

the project into three phases but is also concerned about additional 

cost growth, even after accelerating the project by adding an additional $150,000,000 to it for fiscal year 2013. 

The committee has changed the budget tables to reflect an authorization of $340,000,000 for phase one of this project. Out of 

concern for cost growth, the committee is putting a cap on phase 

one at $4,200,000,000. The NNSA should expect similar budgetary 

caps to appear when the committee ascertains the projected cost of 

phases two and three, and will critically examine any additional 

growth above the fiscal year 2013 total project cost estimate of 

$6,500,000,000. 

The committee requests quarterly updates from the General Accountability Office (GAO) on all phases of the Uranium Processing 

Facility construction project. The updates should include, at a minimum, progress on adhering to cost projections as well as meeting 

the requirements of section 2753 of title 50, United States Code, 

‘‘Notification of cost overruns for certain Department of Energy 

Projects’’, the status of the technology readiness levels for equipment and processes that will accompany each phase of the project, 

independent cost estimates, the programmatic structure of the relationship between the prime contractor and sub-contractors, and 

any other issues that the GAO believes are important pertaining 

to the project’s requirements, cost, schedule, and technology readiness levels. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
292 

Authority to restore certain formerly Restricted Data to the 

Restricted Data category (sec. 3121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 142 the Atomic Energy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2162) to 

restore to the Restricted Data category certain information that 

has been removed from that category pursuant to sections 142(d) 

and 142(e). This provision was at the request of the Department of 

Energy. The data is currently treated as classified information. The 

provision also makes technical corrections to section 142(e) to account for the Director of National Intelligence. The proposed provision would permit the Department of Energy, in conjunction with 

the Department of Defense or the Director of National Intelligence 

to restore formerly Restricted Data to its original Restricted Data 

category. 

Subtitle C—Reports 

Report on actions required for transition of regulation of 

non-nuclear activities of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration to other federal agencies (sec. 3131) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy submit to the congressional defense committees a report on actions required to transition, to the maximum extent practicable, the regulation of non-nuclear operations of the National Nuclear Security Administration over a period of 5 years to 

federal agencies other than the Department of Energy (DOE). The 

provision would require the transition plan be submitted to the 

congressional defense committees not later than February 28, 2013. 

The committee directs the Government Accountability Office to 

concurrently report to the congressional defense committees by 

February 28, 2013, those DOE regulations in section 851 of title 10, 

Code of Federal Regulations, that are more protective, comparable, 

or less protective, than those of outside federal agencies. 

The committee expects the Department to perform wide outreach 

with the public, affected communities, and employees of its facilities in developing this plan. 

Report on consolidation of facilities of the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (sec. 3132) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) to report to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after enactment of this 

Act, on the feasibility of consolidation in the National Nuclear Security Administration Complex if excess facilities exist and consolidation would reduce cost. If the NWC finds further consolidation is 

feasible, the report shall recommend a process for consolidation. No 

funds may be spent on phase CD–3 (start of construction) of the 

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement building, Department of Energy Project 04–D–125 and the Uranium Processing Facility, 06–D–141 until such report is transmitted to the congressional defense committees. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
293 

Regional radiological security zones (sec. 3133) 

The committee proposes a provision that would have the National Nuclear Security Administration prepare a report on the feasibility of establishing radiological security zones on a regional 

basis rather than on a country by country case as is now done. The 

report should include the estimated costs of establishing and monitoring such zones through centralized monitoring centers. The report is due no later than 180 days after date of enactment of this 

Act. 

Report on legacy uranium mines (sec. 3134) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to prepare a report on abandoned uranium 

mines used by the U.S. atomic weapons program. The report is due 

18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Comptroller General of the United States review of projects 

carried out by the Office of Environmental Management 

of the Department of Energy pursuant to the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects (sec. 3135) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) which requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct several reviews of 

clean-up projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (ARRA) of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) carried out by the Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) that 

would eliminate the 120–day status briefings on project performances. Section 3134 required a number of reviews by the GAO: (1) 

an initial review due 30 days from the enactment of the NDAA for 

Fiscal Year 2010 on the criteria used by EM to select projects to 

be carried out under ARRA along with a description of the process 

used to validate the scope, cost, and schedule for these projects; (2) 

status briefings on project performance 30 days after submission of 

the first report and every 120 days thereafter until all EM ARRA 

funds are expended; and (3) a capping report on the implementation of all EM projects carried out under ARRA. GAO would complete its ongoing engagement as well as the capping report. 

GAO completed the first review and has subsequently completed 

eight status briefings. GAO is currently working on a full engagement to report on project status, which will provide the bulk of the 

information needed to complete the capping report. At this point, 

EM is not likely to completely expend ARRA funds until at least 

the end of fiscal year 2013. 

Items of Special Interest 

General Accountability Office Study of National Nuclear Security Administration Cost Estimating Practices 

The committee has found that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has been inconsistent in the application of 

cost estimating practices on the B–61 gravity bomb program and 

several other large projects such at the Chemistry and Metallurgy 

Research Replacement Facility for Nuclear Operations. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
294 

The committee directs the General Accountability Office to conduct an audit of the cost estimating practices of the NNSA with 

recommendations to bring the NNSA into compliance with generally accepted cost estimating practices used for similar projects. 

The report will be due March 1, 2013. 

National Ignition Facility overhead structure 

The committee has found that National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) National Ignition Facility (NIF) has been using a 

different overhead rate from the rest of the Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory, which has caused a large dollar impact when 

requested to be moved to a similar rate as the rest of the lab. 

The committee directs the NNSA to move the NIF to the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities funding schedule in the fiscal 

year 2014 budget documentation. 

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities 

The committee has found that there have been recent attempts 

to consolidate the funding for the nuclear weapons program’s Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) outside the Deputy 

Administrator for Defense Programs. Such consolidation of the 

RTBF away from the line manager’s responsible for the weapons 

program is inconsistent with principals of good management. The 

committee directs the National Nuclear Security Administration to 

ensure that line responsibility for the RTBF rest with the Deputy 

Administrator for Defense Programs. 

Acquisition corps 

The committee has found that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) suffers from a lack of consistent standards for 

large program acquisition. The committee directs the NNSA to report no later than January 30, 2013, on a plan to develop a structure for acquisition personnel similar to that in the Department of 

Defense in chapter 87 of title 10 United States Code. 

Plan for use of Office of Science facilities 

The committee has found that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) uses a wide range basic science facilities operated by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science as part 

of its stockpile stewardship program. These user facilities include 

the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory, the 

Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and 

the Linac Coherent Light Source at the SLAC National Accelerator 

Laboratory. Using DOE’s state the art user facilities is an excellent 

example of how the NNSA maintains excellence in its science base 

while supporting Department of Energy facilities as a whole. The 

committee directs the NNSA to prepare a report to the congressional defense committees a long-term plan for the use of current 

and future Office of Science facilities such as the Facility for Rare 

Isotope Beams and the National Synchrotron Light Source relative 

to support the stockpile stewardship program. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
295 

Independence of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

The committee has found that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is often burdened with extra responsibilities 

assigned by the Secretary of Energy. The committee requests that 

no later than January 30, 2013, the Nuclear Weapons Council 

evaluate the semi-independent nature of the NNSA as originally 

created in 1999 and report back to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives and Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives on measures that can be taken so that the NNSA operates according to its original legislative intent. 

Adherence to section 3114 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

Section 3114 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) titled ‘‘Notification 

of cost overruns for certain Department of Energy Projects’’ (50 

U.S.C. 2753) set up a series of cost overrun features for life extension programs and construction projects both in the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Energy Office 

of Environmental Management. To date, there has been no reporting to the committee on the efforts of the Department of Energy 

response to this legal requirement. 

No later than January 31, 2013, the Secretary of Energy shall 

submit a report to Congress outlining the status of programs affected by this provision of law. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(297) 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

Authorization (sec. 3201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $29,415,000 for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, an increase of $385,000 above the fiscal year 2012 funding level. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(299) 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would re-authorize 

certain aspects of the Maritime Administration. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(301) 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and activities in 

accordance with the tables in division D of this bill, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established procedures. 

Consistent with the previously expressed views of the committee, 

the provision would also require that decisions by agency heads to 

commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific entity on the basis 

of such funding tables be based on authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based selection procedures in accordance 

with the requirements of sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, 

United States Code, and other applicable provisions of law. 

Funding tables (secs. 4101–4701) 

The committee recommends provisions that provide line-item 

guidance for the funding authorized in this Act, in accordance with 

the requirements of section 4001. The provisions also display the 

line-item funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 

2013 budget request and shows where the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(303) 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
304 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT. 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

001 UTILITY F/W AIRCRAFT .................................................................................... 2 18,639 2 18,639 002 C–12 CARGO AIRPLANE .................................................................................. 0 0 003 MQ–1 UAV ....................................................................................................... 19 518,088 19 518,088 004 RQ–11 (RAVEN) ............................................................................................... 234 25,798 234 25,798 005 BCT UNMANNED AERIAL VEH (UAVS) INCR 1 ................................................. 0 0 

ROTARY 

006 HELICOPTER, LIGHT UTILITY (LUH) .................................................................. 34 271,983 34 271,983 007 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN ................................................................ 40 577,115 40 577,115 008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 107,707 107,707 009 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD ......................................................... 8 153,993 8 153,993 010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 146,121 146,121 011 AH–64 BLOCK II/WRA ...................................................................................... 0 0 012 KIOWA WARRIOR (OH–58F) WRA ..................................................................... 0 0 013 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ............................................................. 59 1,107,087 59 1,107,087 014 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 115,113 115,113 015 CH–47 HELICOPTER ........................................................................................ 38 1,076,036 38 1,076,036 016 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 83,346 83,346 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
305 

017 C12 AIRCRAFT MODS ...................................................................................... 0 0 018 MQ–1 PAYLOAD—UAS .................................................................................... 231,508 231,508 019 MQ–1 WEAPONIZATION—UAS ......................................................................... 0 0 020 GUARDRAIL MODS (MIP) ................................................................................. 16,272 16,272 021 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) .................................................................. 4,294 4,294 022 AH–64 MODS ................................................................................................... 178,805 178,805 023 CH–47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP) ...................................................... 39,135 39,135 024 UTILITY/CARGO AIRPLANE MODS ..................................................................... 24,842 24,842 025 AIRCRAFT LONG RANGE MODS ........................................................................ 0 0 026 UTILITY HELICOPTER MODS ............................................................................. 73,804 73,804 027 KIOWA WARRIOR MODS ................................................................................... 192,484 192,484 028 AIRBORNE AVIONICS ....................................................................................... 0 0 029 NETWORK AND MISSION PLAN ........................................................................ 190,789 190,789 030 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE .......................................................................... 133,191 –44,000 89,191 

JTRS integration delayed ............................................................................ [–44,000 ] 

031 GATM ROLLUP ................................................................................................. 87,280 87,280 032 RQ–7 UAV MODS ............................................................................................. 104,339 104,339 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

033 SPARE PARTS (AIR) ......................................................................................... 0 0 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

034 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT ............................................................ 34,037 34,037 035 SURVIVABILITY CM .......................................................................................... 0 0 036 CMWS .............................................................................................................. 127,751 127,751 

OTHER SUPPORT 

037 AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 4,886 4,886 038 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 82,511 82,511 039 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS .................................................................... 77,381 77,381 040 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .................................................................................... 47,235 47,235 041 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ................................................................................... 1,643 1,643 042 LAUNCHER, 2.75 ROCKET ............................................................................... 516 516 

TOTAL, AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ....................................................... 5,853,729 –44,000 5,809,729 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
306 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

001 PATRIOT SYSTEM SUMMARY ........................................................................... 84 646,590 84 646,590 002 MSE MISSILE ................................................................................................... 12,850 12,850003 SURFACE-LAUNCHED AMRAAM SYSTEM SUMMARY ........................................ 0 0 004 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY ................................................................................ 1,401 1,401 005 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ........................................................... 400 81,121 400 81,121 006 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY .............................................................................. 1,403 64,712 1,403 64,712007 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 19,931 19,931 008 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ..................................................................... 1,608 218,679 1,608 218,679 009 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR) .................................... 2,430 18,767 2,430 18,767 010 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM .................................................. 12,051 12,051 011 PATRIOT MODS ................................................................................................ 199,565 199,565012 ITAS/TOW MODS .............................................................................................. 0 0 013 MLRS MODS .................................................................................................... 2,466 2,466 014 HIMARS MODIFICATIONS .................................................................................. 6,068 6,068 015 HELLFIRE MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................... 0 0 016 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ........................................................................... 7,864 7,864 017 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS ................................................................................... 3,864 3,864 018 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (MISSILES) ..................................................... 1,560 1,560 019 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT .......................................................................... 5,200 5,200 

TOTAL, MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY .......................................................... 1,302,689 0 1,302,689 PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

001 STRYKER VEHICLE ........................................................................................... 58 286,818 58 286,818 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
307 

002 FCS SPIN OUTS ............................................................................................... 0 0 

MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

003 STRYKER (MOD) .............................................................................................. 60,881 60,881 004 FIST VEHICLE (MOD) ....................................................................................... 57,257 57,257 005 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) ............................................................................. 148,193 148,193 006 HOWITZER, MED SP FT 155MM M109A6 (MOD) ............................................. 10,341 10,341 007 PALADIN PIM MOD IN SERVICE ....................................................................... 17 206,101 17 206,101 008 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES) ..................................... 31 107,909 123,000 31 230,909 

Increased production .................................................................................. [123,000 ] 

009 ASSAULT BREACHER VEHICLE ......................................................................... 10 50,039 10 50,039 010 M88 FOV MODS ............................................................................................... 29,930 29,930 011 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) ................................................................................ 129,090 129,090 012 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM ......................................................................... 74,433 74,433 

012A ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 91,000 91,000 

Advanced procurement Abrams upgrade program .................................... [91,000 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

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

WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

014 INTEGRATED AIR BURST WEAPON SYSTEM FAMILY ........................................ 506 506 015 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN (7.62MM) ........................................................ 0 0 016 MACHINE GUN, CAL .50 M2 ROLL .................................................................. 0 0 017 LIGHTWEIGHT .50 CALIBER MACHINE GUN ..................................................... 610 25,183 –610 –25,183 0 0 

Program termination .................................................................................. [–25,183 ] 

018 MK–19 GRENADE MACHINE GUN (40MM) ....................................................... 0 0 019 MORTAR SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 8,104 8,104 020 M107, CAL. 50, SNIPER RIFLE ........................................................................ 0 0 021 XM320 GRENADE LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM) ................................................. 2,280 14,096 2,280 14,096 022 M110 SEMI-AUTOMATIC SNIPER SYSTEM (SASS) ........................................... 0 0 023 M4 CARBINE .................................................................................................... 0 0 024 CARBINE .......................................................................................................... 12,000 21,272 12,000 21,272 025 SHOTGUN, MODULAR ACCESSORY SYSTEM (MASS) ........................................ 2,107 6,598 2,107 6,598 026 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ...................................... 240 56,725 240 56,725 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
308 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

027 HOWITZER LT WT 155MM (T) .......................................................................... 13,827 13,827 

MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 

028 MK–19 GRENADE MACHINE GUN MODS ......................................................... 0 0 029 M777 MODS .................................................................................................... 26,843 26,843 030 M4 CARBINE MODS ......................................................................................... 27,243 27,243 031 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS ................................................................... 39,974 39,974 032 M249 SAW MACHINE GUN MODS .................................................................... 4,996 4,996 033 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS .............................................................. 6,806 6,806 034 SNIPER RIFLES MODIFICATIONS ...................................................................... 14,113 14,113 035 M119 MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 20,727 20,727 036 M16 RIFLE MODS ............................................................................................ 3,306 3,306 037 MODIFICATIONS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) .......................................... 3,072 3,072 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

038 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (WOCV-WTCV) ................................................ 2,026 2,026 039 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (WOCV-WTCV) .................................................. 10,115 10,115 040 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ........................................................................... 442 442 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

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

SPARES 

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

TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ..................................................... 1,501,706 188,817 1,690,523 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

001 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 158,313 158,313 002 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 91,438 91,438 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
309 

003 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ............................................................................ 8,954 8,954 004 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 109,604 109,604 005 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES .................................................................................. 4,041 4,041 006 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES .................................................................................. 12,654 12,654 007 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES .................................................................................. 72,154 –37,000 35,154

Decrease for excess .................................................................................... [–37,000 ] 

008 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES .................................................................................. 60,138 –60,138 0 

Decrease for excess .................................................................................... [–60,138 ] 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

009 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ............................................................................ 44,375 44,375 010 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ............................................................................ 27,471 27,471 011 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES .......................................................................... 87,811 87,811 

TANK AMMUNITION 

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

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

013 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM AND 105MM, ALL TYP ................................. 50,861 50,861 014 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES .................................................. 26,227 26,227 015 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE XM982 ......................................................... 110,329 –55,000 55,329 

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

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

MINES 

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

NETWORKED MUNITIONS 

018 SPIDER NETWORK MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ..................................................... 17,408 –14,300 3,108 

Program decrease ....................................................................................... [–14,300 ] 

ROCKETS 

019 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES .............................................. 1,005 1,005 020 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ..................................................................... 123,433 123,433 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

021 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES .............................................................. 35,189 35,189 022 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 33,477 33,477 023 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES ....................................................................................... 9,991 9,991 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
310 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

024 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES ................................................................................. 10,388 10,388 

MISCELLANEOUS 

025 AMMO COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES .................................................................... 19,383 19,383 026 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES ........................................................... 7,336 7,336 027 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES ........................................................................................ 6,641 6,641 028 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 15,092 15,092 029 AMMUNITION PECULIAR EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 15,692 15,692 030 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (AMMO) .............................................. 14,107 14,107 031 CLOSEOUT LIABILITIES .................................................................................... 106 106 

PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 

032 PROVISION OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ........................................................... 220,171 220,171 033 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION, ALL ...................................... 182,461 182,461 034 ARMS INITIATIVE .............................................................................................. 3,377 3,377 

TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ............................................ 1,739,706 –166,438 1,573,268 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

001 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED ................................................................................. 27 7,097 27 7,097 002 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) .................................................... 1,248 346,115 50,000 1,248 396,115 

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

003 FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIP ......................................... 19,292 19,292 004 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ............................................... 1,534 52,933 1,534 52,933 005 PLS ESP ........................................................................................................... 18,035 18,035 

006 ARMORED SECURITY VEHICLES (ASV) ............................................................ 0 0 007 MINE PROTECTION VEHICLE FAMILY ............................................................... 0 0 008 FAMILY OF MINE RESISTANT AMBUSH PROTEC (MRAP) ................................. 0 0 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
311 

009 TRUCK, TRACTOR, LINE HAUL, M915/M916 .................................................... 12 3,619 12 3,619 010 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV ..................................... 60 26,859 60 26,859 011 HMMWV RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM ........................................................... 0 0 012 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ............................................ 950 69,163 950 69,163 013 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP .................................................................... 91,754 91,754 014 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS ................................... 0 0 015 TOWING DEVICE-FIFTH WHEEL ........................................................................ 0 0 016 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS, OPA1 ........................................................................... 0 0 

NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES 

017 HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN ................................................................................ 0 0 018 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ................................................................... 2,548 2,548 019 NONTACTICAL VEHICLES, OTHER ..................................................................... 16,791 16,791 

COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 

020 JOINT COMBAT IDENTIFICATION MARKING SYSTEM ......................................... 7,038 10,061 7,038 10,061 021 WIN-T—GROUND FORCES TACTICAL NETWORK .............................................. 2,166 892,635 2,166 892,635 022 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ................................................................ 45,626 45,626 023 JCSE EQUIPMENT (USREDCOM) ....................................................................... 5,143 5,143 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

024 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE WIDEBAND SATCOM SYSTEMS .................................... 23 151,636 23 151,636 025 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ............................. 6,822 6,822 026 SHF TERM ........................................................................................................ 9,108 9,108027 SAT TERM, EMUT (SPACE) .............................................................................. 0 0 028 NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE) .......................................... 3,592 27,353 3,592 27,353 029 SMART-T (SPACE) ............................................................................................ 98,656 98,656 030 SCAMP (SPACE) ............................................................................................... 0 0 031 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC—GBS ........................................................................... 47,131 47,131 032 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (TAC SAT) .................................................................. 39 23,281 39 23,281 

COMM—COMBAT SUPPORT COMM 

033 MOD-IN-SERVICE PROFILER ............................................................................ 0 0 

COMM—C3 SYSTEM 

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

COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
312 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

035 ARMY DATA DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (DATA RADIO) ......................................... 979 979 036 JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM ...................................................................... 11,059 556,250 –30,000 11,059 526,250 

AMF integration ahead of need ................................................................. [–30,000 ] 

037 MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) ....................................... 86,219 86,219 038 RADIO TERMINAL SET, MIDS LVT(2) ................................................................ 7,798 7,798 039 SINCGARS FAMILY ........................................................................................... 9,001 9,001 040 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS—OPA2 ......................................................................... 108 24,601 108 24,601 041 TRACTOR DESK ................................................................................................ 7,779 7,779 042 CMMS-ELEC EQUIP FIELDING .......................................................................... 0 0 043 SPIDER APLA REMOTE CONTROL UNIT ............................................................ 34,365 –21,000 13,365 

Funding ahead of need .............................................................................. [–21,000 ] 

044 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM COMM/ELECTRONICS ............................. 1,833 1,833 045 TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM ................................ 12,984 12,984 046 COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATOR (CSEL) ............................................... 0 0 047 GUNSHOT DETECTION SYSTEM (GDS) ............................................................. 46 2,332 46 2,332 048 RADIO, IMPROVED HF (COTS) FAMILY ............................................................. 1,132 1,132 049 MEDICAL COMM FOR CBT CASUALTY CARE (MC4) ........................................ 2,535 22,899 2,535 22,899 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

051 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE ..................................................................... 1,564 1,564 052 RESERVE CA/MISO GPF EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 1,540 28,781 1,540 28,781 

INFORMATION SECURITY 

053 TSEC—ARMY KEY MGT SYS (AKMS) .............................................................. 6,087 23,432 6,087 23,432 054 INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM-ISSP .......................................... 2,469 43,897 2,469 43,897 055 BIOMETRICS ENTERPRISE ............................................................................... 0 0 

COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 

056 TERRESTRIAL TRANSMISSION .......................................................................... 2,891 2,891 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
313 

057 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................. 13,872 13,872 058 WW TECH CON IMP PROG (WWTCIP) .............................................................. 9,595 9,595 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

059 INFORMATION SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 142,133 142,133 060 DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM (DMS) ................................................................ 0 0 061 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM .................................. 57,727 57,727 062 PENTAGON INFORMATION MGT AND TELECOM ................................................ 5,000 5,000 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

065 JTT/CIBS-M ...................................................................................................... 1,641 1,641066 PROPHET GROUND .......................................................................................... 13 48,797 13 48,797067 DIGITAL TOPOGRAPHIC SPT SYS (DTSS) ......................................................... 0 0 068 DRUG INTERDICTION PROGRAM (DIP) (TIARA) ................................................ 0 0 069 DCGS-A (MIP) .................................................................................................. 1,743 184,007 1,743 184,007 070 JOINT TACTICAL GROUND STATION (JTAGS) .................................................... 5 2,680 5 2,680 071 TROJAN (MIP) .................................................................................................. 21,483 21,483072 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ...................................................... 2,412 2,412 073 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRINTING AND COLLECTION ............................................ 7,077 7,077 074 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (MIP) .............................................................. 0 0 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

075 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR ....................................................... 43 72,594 43 72,594 076 CREW ............................................................................................................... 15,446 15,446 077 FMLY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITIES ...................................... 0 0 078 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES ................................ 1,470 1,470 079 CI MODERNIZATION ......................................................................................... 1,368 1,368 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

080 FAAD GBS ........................................................................................................ 7,980 7,980081 SENTINEL MODS .............................................................................................. 70 33,444 70 33,444 082 SENSE THROUGH THE WALL (STTW) ............................................................... 6,212 –6,212 0 

Slow execution of prior years appropriations ............................................ [–6,212 ] 

083 NIGHT VISION DEVICES ................................................................................... 8,687 166,516 8,687 166,516 084 LONG RANGE ADVANCED SCOUT SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .............................. 0 0 085 NIGHT VISION, THERMAL WPN SIGHT .............................................................. 82,162 82,162 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
314 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

086 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF .......................................... 20,717 20,717 087 COUNTER-ROCKET, ARTILLERY & MORTAR (C-RAM) ...................................... 0 0 088 BASE EXPEDITIARY TARGETING AND SURV SYS ............................................. 0 0 089 GREEN LASER INTERDICTION SYSTEM (GLIS) ................................................. 1,014 1,014 090 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ......................................... 29,881 29,881 091 PROFILER ......................................................................................................... 136 12,482 136 12,482 092 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (FIREFINDER RADARS) ............................................... 3,075 3,075 093 FORCE XXI BATTLE CMD BRIGADE & BELOW (FBCB2) ................................... 0 0 094 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) .............................................. 1,032 141,385 1,032 141,385 095 LIGHTWEIGHT LASER DESIGNATOR/RANGEFINDER .......................................... 0 0 096 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) ........................................................................ 22,403 22,403 097 COMPUTER BALLISTICS: LHMBC XM32 ........................................................... 0 0 098 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................... 29,505 29,505 099 COUNTERFIRE RADARS .................................................................................... 13 244,409 13 244,409100 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 14,377 109 TC AIMS II ....................................................................................................... 0 0 110 TACTICAL INTERNET MANAGER ....................................................................... 0 0 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
315 

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) ................................................................ 586 586 123 BCT NETWORK ................................................................................................. 0 0 124 DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION PROGRAM ......................................................... 0 0 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

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

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

125 PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 0 0 126 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) .................................................. 1,562 3,960 1,562 3,960 127 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS) ..................................................................... 637 4,374 637 4,374 128 CBRN SOLDIER PROTECTION ........................................................................... 219 9,259 219 9,259 129 SMOKE & OBSCURANT FAMILY: SOF (NON AAO ITEM) ................................... 0 0 

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 

132 HANDHELD STANDOFF MINEFIELD DETECTION SYS-HST ................................. 0 0 133 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS) ...................................... 0 0 134 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS) ................................................. 29,106 29,106 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
316 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

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 5,226 103,317 142 MOUNTED SOLDIER SYSTEM ........................................................................... 0 0 143 FORCE PROVIDER ............................................................................................ 0 0 144 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 

152 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS ................................................ 20 2,495 20 2,495 153 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (MAINT EQ) .................................................... 0 0 

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 

154 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, HVY, 6X4 (CCE) .......................................................... 2,028 2,028 155 SKID STEER LOADER (SSL) FAMILY OF SYSTEM ............................................. 0 0 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
317 

156 SCRAPERS, EARTHMOVING .............................................................................. 9 6,146 9 6,146 157 MISSION MODULES—ENGINEERING ................................................................ 40 31,200 40 31,200 158 COMPACTOR .................................................................................................... 0 0 159 LOADERS ......................................................................................................... 0 0 160 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR .................................................................................. 0 0 161 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 3,679 164 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 

168 JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL (JHSV) .................................................................. 0 0 169 HARBORMASTER COMMAND AND CONTROL CENTER ...................................... 0 0 170 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 

172 ROUGH TERRAIN CONTAINER HANDLER (RTCH) ............................................. 0 0 173 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS ..................................................................................... 64 5,895 64 5,895 174 ALL TERRAIN LIFTING ARMY SYSTEM .............................................................. 0 0 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
318 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

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 1,373 186 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 –12,000 311 71,937 

Transfer to PE 0604641A at Army request ................................................ [–12,000 ] 

192 TRAINING LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT ................................................................ 0 0 

OPA2 

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

TOTAL, OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ............................................................ 6,326,245 –19,212 6,307,033 JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND NETWORK ATTACK 

001 ATTACK THE NETWORK .................................................................................... 0 0 

JIEDDO DEVICE DEFEAT 

002 DEFEAT THE DEVICE ........................................................................................ 0 0 

FORCE TRAINING 

003 TRAIN THE FORCE ........................................................................................... 0 0 

STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

004 OPERATIONS .................................................................................................... 227,414 –227,414 0 

Transfer to OCO .......................................................................................... [–227,414 ] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
319 

TOTAL, JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND ....................................... 227,414 –227,414 0 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

001 EA–18G ........................................................................................................... 12 1,027,443 12 1,027,443 002 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 0 0 003 F/A–18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET ........................................................................ 26 2,035,131 26 2,035,131004 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 30,296 60,000 90,296 

Retain option for additional FY 14 aircraft ............................................... [60,000 ] 

005 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV .............................................................................. 4 1,007,632 4 1,007,632 006 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 65,180 65,180 007 JSF STOVL ........................................................................................................ 6 1,404,737 6 1,404,737 008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 106,199 106,199 009 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) ....................................................................................... 17 1,303,120 17 1,303,120 010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 154,202 154,202 011 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) .................................................................... 27 720,933 27 720,933 012 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 69,658 69,658 013 MH–60S (MYP) ................................................................................................ 18 384,792 18 384,792 014 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 69,277 69,277 015 MH–60R (MYP) ................................................................................................ 19 656,866 19 656,866 016 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 185,896 185,896 017 P–8A POSEIDON .............................................................................................. 13 2,420,755 13 2,420,755 018 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 325,679 325,679 019 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE ....................................................................................... 5 861,498 5 861,498 020 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 123,179 123,179 

AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 

021 C–40A ............................................................................................................. 0 0 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

022 JPATS ............................................................................................................... 33 278,884 33 278,884 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

023 KC–130J .......................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 024 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 22,995 22,995 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
320 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

025 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 51,124 51,124 026 MQ–8 UAV ....................................................................................................... 6 124,573 6 124,573 027 STUASL0 UAV .................................................................................................. 5 9,593 5 9,593 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

028 EA–6 SERIES ................................................................................................... 30,062 30,062

029 AEA SYSTEMS .................................................................................................. 49,999 49,999 030 AV–8 SERIES ................................................................................................... 38,703 38,703031 ADVERSARY ..................................................................................................... 4,289 4,289 032 F–18 SERIES ................................................................................................... 647,306 647,306 033 H–46 SERIES ................................................................................................... 2,343 2,343 034 AH–1W SERIES ................................................................................................ 8,721 8,721 035 H–53 SERIES ................................................................................................... 45,567 45,567036 SH–60 SERIES ................................................................................................. 83,527 83,527 037 H–1 SERIES ..................................................................................................... 6,508 6,508 038 EP–3 SERIES ................................................................................................... 66,374 66,374039 P–3 SERIES ..................................................................................................... 148,405 148,405 040 E–2 SERIES ..................................................................................................... 16,322 16,322 041 TRAINER A/C SERIES ....................................................................................... 34,284 34,284 042 C–2A ............................................................................................................... 4,743 4,743 043 C–130 SERIES ................................................................................................. 60,302 60,302 044 FEWSG ............................................................................................................. 670 670 045 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C SERIES ..................................................................... 26,311 26,311 046 E–6 SERIES ..................................................................................................... 158,332 158,332 047 EXECUTIVE HELICOPTERS SERIES ................................................................... 58,163 58,163 048 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ........................................................................... 12,421 12,421 049 T–45 SERIES ................................................................................................... 64,488 64,488


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
321 

050 POWER PLANT CHANGES ................................................................................. 21,569 21,569 051 JPATS SERIES .................................................................................................. 1,552 1,552 052 AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT MODS ....................................................................... 2,473 2,473 053 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 114,690 114,690 054 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ......................................................................... 96,183 96,183 055 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM .......................................................... 0 0 056 ID SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 39,846 39,846 057 P–8 SERIES ..................................................................................................... 5,302 5,302 058 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION ................................................................................ 34,127 34,127 059 RQ–7 SERIES .................................................................................................. 49,324 49,324 060 V–22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY .................................................................. 95,856 95,856 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

061 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ........................................................................... 1,166,430 1,166,430 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 

062 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 387,195 387,195 063 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ................................................................... 23,469 23,469 064 WAR CONSUMABLES ........................................................................................ 43,383 43,383 065 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ....................................................................... 3,399 3,399 066 SPECIAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 32,274 32,274 067 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ............................................................ 1,742 1,742 068 CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS ............................................................. 0 0 

TOTAL, AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................................ 17,129,296 60,000 17,189,296 WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

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

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

002 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ..................................................................... 5,553 5,553 

STRATEGIC MISSILES 

003 TOMAHAWK ...................................................................................................... 196 308,970 196 308,970 

TACTICAL MISSILES 

004 AMRAAM .......................................................................................................... 67 102,683 67 102,683 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
322 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

005 SIDEWINDER .................................................................................................... 150 80,226 150 80,226 006 JSOW ................................................................................................................ 280 127,609 280 127,609 007 STANDARD MISSILE ......................................................................................... 94 399,482 94 399,482 008 RAM ................................................................................................................. 62 66,769 62 66,769 009 HELLFIRE ......................................................................................................... 998 74,501 998 74,501 010 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM) .................................... 0 0 011 AERIAL TARGETS ............................................................................................. 61,518 61,518 012 OTHER MISSILE SUPPORT ............................................................................... 3,585 3,585 

MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

013 ESSM ............................................................................................................... 37 58,194 37 58,194 014 HARM MODS .................................................................................................... 100 86,721 100 86,721 015 STANDARD MISSILES MODS ............................................................................ 0 0 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

016 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ................................................................... 2,014 2,014 017 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON .............................................................. 21,454 21,454 

ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

018 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 54,945 54,945 

TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

019 SSTD ................................................................................................................ 2,700 2,700 020 ASW TARGETS .................................................................................................. 10,385 10,385 

MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

021 MK–54 TORPEDO MODS .................................................................................. 75 74,487 75 74,487 022 MK–48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS ...................................................................... 94 54,281 94 54,281 023 QUICKSTRIKE MINE .......................................................................................... 6,852 6,852 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

024 TORPEDO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 46,402 46,402 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
323 

025 ASW RANGE SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 11,927 11,927 

DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 

026 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ............................................................ 3,614 3,614 

GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

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

MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

028 CIWS MODS ..................................................................................................... 59,303 7,700 67,003 

Buy additional ordnance alteration kits .................................................... [7,700 ] 

029 COAST GUARD WEAPONS ................................................................................ 19,072 19,072 030 GUN MOUNT MODS .......................................................................................... 54,706 54,706 031 CRUISER MODERNIZATION WEAPONS .............................................................. 1,591 1,591 032 AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS .................................................. 20,607 20,607 

OTHER 

033 CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS ............................................................. 0 0 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

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

TOTAL, WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................................ 3,117,578 7,700 3,125,278 PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

001 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ............................................................................ 27,024 27,024 002 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .................................................................... 56,575 56,575 003 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION ........................................................................... 21,266 21,266 004 PRACTICE BOMBS ........................................................................................... 34,319 34,319 005 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES ..................................................... 53,755 53,755 006 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ........................................................... 61,693 61,693 007 JATOS ............................................................................................................... 2,776 2,776 

008 LRLAP 6′′ LONG RANGE ATTACK PROJECTILE ................................................. 7,102 7,102 

009 5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION ......................................................................... 48,320 48,320 010 INTERMEDIATE CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION .................................................... 25,544 25,544 011 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ....................................................................... 41,624 41,624 012 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ......................................................... 65,893 65,893 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
324 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

013 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ..................................................................... 11,176 11,176 014 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ............................................................. 4,116 4,116 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

015 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION ............................................................................. 83,733 83,733 016 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES ......................................................................... 24,645 24,645 017 40MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 16,201 16,201 018 60MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 0 0 019 81MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 13,711 –10,000 3,711 

Decrease for excess .................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

020 120MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 12,557 12,557 021 CTG 25MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 0 0 022 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 7,634 –500 7,134 

Decrease for excess .................................................................................... [–500 ] 

023 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 27,528 27,528 024 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 93,065 93,065 025 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES .............................................................. 2,047 –2,000 47 

Decrease for excess .................................................................................... [–2,000 ] 

026 FUZE, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................. 5,297 5,297 027 NON LETHALS .................................................................................................. 1,362 1,362 028 AMMO MODERNIZATION ................................................................................... 4,566 4,566 029 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 6,010 6,010 

PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS 

029B PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS ..................................................................................... –88,300 –88,300 

Ammunition change in requirements ......................................................... [–88,300 ] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
325 

TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ............................................. 759,539 –100,800 658,739 SHIPBUILDING & CONVERSION, NAVY OTHER WARSHIPS 

001 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................ 1 608,195 1 608,195 002 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 0 0 003 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE .......................................................................... 2 3,217,601 2 3,217,601 004 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 874,878 777,679 1,652,557 

Advance procurement for 2nd SSN in FY 14 ............................................. [777,679 ] 

005 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS .......................................................................... 1 1,613,392 1 1,613,392 006 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 70,010 70,010 007 SSBN ERO ....................................................................................................... 0 0 008 DDG 1000 ........................................................................................................ 669,222 669,222 009 DDG–51 ........................................................................................................... 2 3,048,658 2 3,048,658 010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 466,283 466,283 011 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP .................................................................................. 4 1,784,959 4 1,784,959 012 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 0 0 

AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS 

013 LPD–17 ............................................................................................................ 0 0 014 LHA REPLACEMENT ......................................................................................... 0 0 015 JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL ............................................................................. 1 189,196 1 189,196 

AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR PROGRAM COST 

016 OCEANOGRAPHIC SHIPS .................................................................................. 0 0 017 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 307,300 307,300 018 OUTFITTING ...................................................................................................... 309,648 309,648 019 SERVICE CRAFT ............................................................................................... 0 0 020 LCAC SLEP ...................................................................................................... 2 47,930 2 47,930 021 COMPLETION OF PY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS .............................................. 372,573 372,573 

TOTAL, SHIPBUILDING & CONVERSION, NAVY ................................................ 13,579,845 777,679 14,357,524 OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
326 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

001 LM–2500 GAS TURBINE .................................................................................. 10,658 10,658 002 ALLISON 501K GAS TURBINE .......................................................................... 8,469 8,469 

NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 

003 OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 23,392 23,392 

PERISCOPES 

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

OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 

005 DDG MOD ........................................................................................................ 452,371 452,371 006 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 16,958 16,958 007 COMMAND AND CONTROL SWITCHBOARD ....................................................... 2,492 2,492 008 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 20,707 20,707 009 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................. 12,046 12,046 010 VIRGINIA CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................... 79,870 79,870 011 LCS CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 19,865 19,865 012 SUBMARINE BATTERIES ................................................................................... 41,522 41,522 013 LPD CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 30,543 30,543 014 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .......................................................... 16,257 16,257 015 DSSP EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................ 3,630 3,630 016 CG MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................ 101,000 101,000 017 LCAC ................................................................................................................ 16,645 16,645 018 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ....................................................................... 35,446 35,446 019 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 65,998 65,998 020 CHEMICAL WARFARE DETECTORS ................................................................... 4,359 4,359 021 SUBMARINE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................... 10,218 10,218 

REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT 

022 REACTOR POWER UNITS .................................................................................. 286,859 286,859 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
327 

023 REACTOR COMPONENTS .................................................................................. 278,503 278,503 

OCEAN ENGINEERING 

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

SMALL BOATS 

025 STANDARD BOATS ........................................................................................... 30,131 30,131 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

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

PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT 

027 OPERATING FORCES IPE .................................................................................. 64,346 64,346 

OTHER SHIP SUPPORT 

028 NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS ................................................................................... 154,652 154,652 029 LCS COMMON MISSION MODULES EQUIPMENT ............................................... 31,319 31,319 030 LCS MCM MISSION MODULES ......................................................................... 38,392 38,392 031 LCS SUW MISSION MODULES .......................................................................... 32,897 32,897 

LOGISTIC SUPPORT 

032 LSD MIDLIFE .................................................................................................... 49,758 49,758 

SHIP RADARS 

033 RADAR SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 0 0 034 SPQ–9B RADAR ............................................................................................... 19,777 19,777 035 AN/SQQ–89 SURF ASW COMBAT SYSTEM ....................................................... 89,201 89,201 036 SSN ACOUSTICS .............................................................................................. 190,874 190,874 037 UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................... 17,035 17,035 038 SONAR SWITCHES AND TRANSDUCERS ........................................................... 13,410 13,410 039 ELECTRONIC WARFARE MILDEC ...................................................................... 0 0 

ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

040 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE SYSTEM ..................................................... 21,489 21,489 041 SSTD ................................................................................................................ 10,716 10,716 042 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ........................................................................ 98,896 98,896 043 SURTASS .......................................................................................................... 2,774 2,774 044 MARITIME PATROL AND RECONNAISSANCE FORCE ......................................... 18,428 18,428 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT 

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


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
328 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT 

046 SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT .................................................................................. 107,060 107,060 047 AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS) .................................................... 914 914 

SUBMARINE SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT 

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

OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

049 COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY ........................................................ 27,881 27,881 050 TRUSTED INFORMATION SYSTEM (TIS) ............................................................ 448 448 051 NAVAL TACTICAL COMMAND SUPPORT SYSTEM (NTCSS) ............................... 35,732 35,732 052 ATDLS .............................................................................................................. 0 0 053 NAVY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NCCS) ........................................... 9,533 9,533 054 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ......................................................... 60,111 60,111 055 SHALLOW WATER MCM .................................................................................... 6,950 6,950 056 NAVSTAR GPS RECEIVERS (SPACE) ................................................................ 9,089 9,089 057 AMERICAN FORCES RADIO AND TV SERVICE .................................................. 7,768 7,768 058 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .......................................................... 3,614 3,614 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

059 OTHER TRAINING EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 42,911 42,911 

AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

060 MATCALS ......................................................................................................... 5,861 5,861061 SHIPBOARD AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ................................................................ 8,362 8,362 062 AUTOMATIC CARRIER LANDING SYSTEM ......................................................... 15,685 15,685 063 NATIONAL AIR SPACE SYSTEM ........................................................................ 16,919 16,919 064 FLEET AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS ......................................................... 6,828 6,828 065 LANDING SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 7,646 7,646 066 ID SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 35,474 35,474 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
329 

067 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS .............................................................. 9,958 9,958 

OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

068 DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND AND CONT ...................................................... 9,064 9,064 069 MARITIME INTEGRATED BROADCAST SYSTEM ................................................. 16,026 16,026 070 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 11,886 11,886 071 DCGS-N ........................................................................................................... 11,887 11,887 072 CANES ............................................................................................................. 341,398 341,398 073 RADIAC ............................................................................................................ 8,083 8,083 074 CANES-INTELL ................................................................................................. 79,427 79,427 075 GPETE .............................................................................................................. 6,083 6,083 076 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM TEST FACILITY .......................................................... 4,495 4,495 077 EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION ................................................................... 4,767 4,767 078 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 81,755 81,755 

SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS 

079 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................................... 0 0 080 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION ............................................................ 56,870 56,870 081 MARITIME DOMAIN AWARENESS (MDA) ........................................................... 1,063 1,063 082 COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS UNDER $5M ........................................................... 28,522 28,522 083 SUBMARINE BROADCAST SUPPORT ................................................................. 4,183 4,183 084 SUBMARINE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ..................................................... 69,025 69,025 

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

085 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ......................................................... 49,294 49,294 086 NAVY MULTIBAND TERMINAL (NMT) ................................................................ 184,825 184,825 

SHORE COMMUNICATIONS 

087 JCS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ................................................................ 2,180 2,180 088 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 1,354 1,354 089 NAVAL SHORE COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................... 0 0 

CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 

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

CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT 

091 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP ........................................................ 12,604 12,604 

OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
330 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

092 COAST GUARD EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 6,680 6,680 093 DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION PROGRAM ......................................................... 0 0 

DRUG INTERDICTION SUPPORT 

094 OTHER DRUG INTERDICTION SUPPORT ........................................................... 0 0 

SONOBUOYS 

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

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

096 WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 70,753 70,753 097 EXPEDITIONARY AIRFIELDS .............................................................................. 8,678 8,678 098 AIRCRAFT REARMING EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 11,349 11,349 099 AIRCRAFT LAUNCH & RECOVERY EQUIPMENT ................................................ 82,618 82,618 100 METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 18,339 18,339 101 DCRS/DPL ........................................................................................................ 1,414 1,414102 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
331 

113 AEGIS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 81,614 81,614 114 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 77,767 77,767 115 VERTICAL LAUNCH SYSTEMS ........................................................................... 754 754 116 MARITIME INTEGRATED PLANNING SYSTEM—MIPS ........................................ 4,965 4,965 

FBM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

117 STRATEGIC MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIP .............................................................. 181,049 181,049 118 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 31,743 125 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 7,265 134 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
332 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

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 4,344 150 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 0 6,169,378 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

001 AAV7A1 PIP ..................................................................................................... 16,089 16,089 002 LAV PIP ............................................................................................................ 186,216 –140,000 46,216 

LAV procurement acquisition objective change ......................................... [–140,000 ] 

ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 

003 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ......................................................... 2,502 2,502 004 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER ........................................................ 17,913 17,913 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
333 

005 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM .................................................. 47,999 47,999 006 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION ................................. 17,706 17,706 

OTHER SUPPORT 

007 MODIFICATION KITS ......................................................................................... 48,040 48,040 008 WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM .............................................................. 4,537 4,537 

GUIDED MISSILES 

009 GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE ........................................................................ 11,054 11,054 010 JAVELIN ............................................................................................................ 0 0 011 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW ..................................................................................... 19,650 19,650 012 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-H) ......................................... 20,708 20,708 

OTHER SUPPORT 

013 MODIFICATION KITS ......................................................................................... 0 0 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 

014 UNIT OPERATIONS CENTER ............................................................................. 1,420 1,420 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 

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

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

016 COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................. 25,822 25,822 017 MODIFICATION KITS ......................................................................................... 2,831 2,831 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

018 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ................................................... 5,498 5,498 019 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 11,290 11,290 

RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

020 RADAR SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 128,079 128,079 021 RQ–21 UAS ..................................................................................................... 5 27,619 5 27,619 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

022 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ................................................................................... 7,319 7,319 023 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................. 7,466 7,466 025 RQ–11 UAV ..................................................................................................... 2,318 2,318 026 DCGS-MC ......................................................................................................... 18,291 18,291 

OTHER COMM/ELEC EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

029 NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 48,084 48,084 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
334 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

030 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES .................................................................. 206,708 206,708 031 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 35,190 35,190 032 RADIO SYSTEMS .............................................................................................. 89,059 89,059 033 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS ....................................................... 22,500 22,500 034 COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT ................................................... 42,625 42,625 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

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

ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES 

035 COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLES .............................................................. 2,877 2,877 036 COMMERCIAL CARGO VEHICLES ..................................................................... 13,960 13,960 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

037 5/4T TRUCK HMMWV (MYP) ............................................................................ 8,052 8,052 038 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS ............................................................... 50,269 50,269 039 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT ................................................... 0 0 040 LOGISTICS VEHICLE SYSTEM REP ................................................................... 8 37,262 8 37,262 041 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS ...................................................................... 48,160 48,160 042 TRAILERS ......................................................................................................... 0 0 

OTHER SUPPORT 

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

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

044 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT .................................................... 13,576 13,576 045 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 16,869 16,869 046 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 19,108 19,108 047 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ....................................................................... 56,253 56,253 048 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................ 13,089 13,089 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
335 

049 EOD SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 73,699 73,699 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

050 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 3,510 3,510 051 GARRISON MOBILE ENGINEER EQUIPMENT (GMEE) ........................................ 11,490 11,490 052 MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ............................................................................ 20,659 20,659 053 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ............................................................ 132 132 

GENERAL PROPERTY 

054 FIELD MEDICAL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 31,068 31,068 055 TRAINING DEVICES .......................................................................................... 45,895 45,895 056 CONTAINER FAMILY ......................................................................................... 5,801 5,801 057 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 23,939 23,939 058 FAMILY OF INTERNALLY TRANSPORTABLE VEH (ITV) ...................................... 0 0 059 BRIDGE BOATS ................................................................................................ 0 0 060 RAPID DEPLOYABLE KITCHEN .......................................................................... 8,365 8,365 

OTHER SUPPORT 

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

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

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

PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS 

062A PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS ..................................................................................... –135,200 –135,200 

LAV procurement acquisition objective change PY ................................... [–135,200 ] 

TOTAL, PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ........................................................ 1,622,955 –275,200 1,347,755 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL FORCES 

001 F–35 ................................................................................................................ 19 3,124,302 19 3,124,302 002 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 293,400 293,400 003 F–22A .............................................................................................................. 0 0 004 C–17A (MYP) ................................................................................................... 0 0 

OTHER AIRLIFT 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
336 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

005 C–130J ............................................................................................................ 68,373 68,373 006 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 0 0 007 HC–130J .......................................................................................................... 1 152,212 1 152,212 008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 0 0 009 MC–130J ......................................................................................................... 4 374,866 4 374,866 010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 0 0 011 HC/MC–130 RECAP ......................................................................................... 0 0 012 C–27J .............................................................................................................. 0 0 

UPT TRAINERS 

013 LIGHT MOBILITY AIRCRAFT .............................................................................. 0 0 014 USAFA POWERED FLIGHT PROGRAM ............................................................... 0 0 

HELICOPTERS 

015 HH–60 LOSS REPLACEMENT/RECAP ............................................................... 60,596 60,596 016 COMMON VERTICAL LIFT SUPPORT PLATFORM (CVLSP) ................................. 0 0 017 CV–22 (MYP) ................................................................................................... 4 294,220 4 294,220 018 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 15,000 15,000 

MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 

019 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/C ..................................................................................... 5 2,498 5 2,498 020 LIGHT ATTACK ARMED RECON ACFT ............................................................... 0 0 021 RQ–11 ............................................................................................................. 0 0 022 STUASL0 .......................................................................................................... 0 0 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

023 INTERIM GATEWAY ........................................................................................... 0 0 024 TARGET DRONES ............................................................................................. 15 129,866 15 129,866 025 C–37A ............................................................................................................. 0 0 026 RQ–4 ............................................................................................................... 75,000 75,000 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
337 

027 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 0 0 028 AC–130J .......................................................................................................... 2 163,970 2 163,970 029 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 0 0 030 MQ–9 ............................................................................................................... 24 553,530 24 553,530 031 RQ–4 BLOCK 40 PROC ................................................................................... 11,654 11,654 

STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

032 B–2A ............................................................................................................... 82,296 82,296 033 B–1B ............................................................................................................... 149,756 149,756 034 B–52 ............................................................................................................... 9,781 9,781 035 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES .......................................... 28,800 28,800 

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 

036 A–10 ................................................................................................................ 89,919 89,919 037 F–15 ................................................................................................................ 148,378 148,378 038 F–16 ................................................................................................................ 6,896 6,896 039 F–22A .............................................................................................................. 283,871 283,871 040 F–35 MODIFICATIONS ...................................................................................... 147,995 147,995 

AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 

041 C–5 ................................................................................................................. 6,967 6,967 042 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 0 0 043 C–5M ............................................................................................................... 944,819 944,819 044 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 175,800 175,800 045 C–9C ............................................................................................................... 0 0 046 C–17A ............................................................................................................. 205,079 205,079 047 C–21 ............................................................................................................... 199 199 048 C–32A ............................................................................................................. 1,750 1,750 049 C–37A ............................................................................................................. 445 445 050 C–130 AMP ..................................................................................................... 0 0 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

051 GLIDER MODS .................................................................................................. 126 126 052 T–6 .................................................................................................................. 15,494 15,494 053 T–1 .................................................................................................................. 272 272 054 T–38 ................................................................................................................ 20,455 20,455 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
338 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

055 U–2 MODS ....................................................................................................... 0 0 056 U–2 MODS ....................................................................................................... 44,477 44,477 057 KC–10A (ATCA) ............................................................................................... 46,921 46,921 058 C–12 ............................................................................................................... 1,876 1,876 059 MC–12W .......................................................................................................... 17,054 17,054 060 C–20 MODS ..................................................................................................... 243 243 061 VC–25A MOD ................................................................................................... 11,185 11,185 062 C–40 ............................................................................................................... 243 243 063 C–130 ............................................................................................................. 67,853 67,853 064 C–130 INTEL ................................................................................................... 0 0 065 C–130J MODS ................................................................................................. 70,555 70,555 066 C–135 ............................................................................................................. 46,707 46,707 067 COMPASS CALL MODS ..................................................................................... 50,024 50,024 068 RC–135 ........................................................................................................... 165,237 165,237 069 E–3 .................................................................................................................. 193,099 193,099 070 E–4 .................................................................................................................. 47,616 47,616 071 E–8 .................................................................................................................. 59,320 12,000 71,320 

Restart production line for the JSTARS re-engining program ................... [12,000 ] 

072 H–1 ................................................................................................................. 5,449 5,449 073 H–60 ............................................................................................................... 26,227 26,227 074 RQ–4 MODS .................................................................................................... 9,257 9,257 075 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ........................................................................... 22,326 22,326 076 OTHER AIRCRAFT ............................................................................................. 18,832 18,832 077 MQ–1 MODS .................................................................................................... 30,861 30,861 078 MQ–9 MODS .................................................................................................... 238,360 238,360 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
339 

079 MQ–9 UAS PAYLOADS ..................................................................................... 93,461 93,461 080 CV–22 MODS ................................................................................................... 23,881 23,881 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

081 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ....................................................................... 729,691 729,691 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

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

POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 

083 A–10 ................................................................................................................ 5,100 5,100 084 B–1 ................................................................................................................. 965 965085 B–2A ............................................................................................................... 0 0 086 B–2A ............................................................................................................... 47,580 47,580 087 C–5 ................................................................................................................. 0 0 088 KC–10A (ATCA) ............................................................................................... 13,100 13,100 089 C–17A ............................................................................................................. 181,703 181,703 090 C–130 ............................................................................................................. 31,830 31,830 091 C–135 ............................................................................................................. 13,434 13,434 092 F–15 ................................................................................................................ 2,363 2,363 093 F–16 ................................................................................................................ 8,506 8,506 094 HH–60 PPS ...................................................................................................... 0 0 095 T–6 .................................................................................................................. 0 0 096 OTHER AIRCRAFT ............................................................................................. 9,522 9,522 

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 

097 INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIVENESS ........................................................................ 20,731 20,731 

WAR CONSUMABLES 

098 WAR CONSUMABLES ........................................................................................ 89,727 89,727 

OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 

099 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ....................................................................... 842,392 842,392 

DARP 

103 U–2 ................................................................................................................. 0 0 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

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


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
340 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS 

103B PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS ..................................................................................... –920,748 –920,748 

Light attack armed reconnaissance (LAAR) cancellation .......................... [–115,049 ] Light mobiilty aircraft cancellation ........................................................... [–65,296 ] Common vertical lift support platform (CVLSP) cancellation ................... [–52,800 ] C–130 AMP cancellation ............................................................................ [–207,163 ] RQ–4 Global Hawk Block 30 cancellation ................................................. [–480,440 ] 

TOTAL, AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................. 11,002,999 –908,748 10,094,251 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT—BALLISTIC 

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

TACTICAL 

002 JASSM .............................................................................................................. 157 240,399 157 240,399 003 SIDEWINDER (AIM–9X) .................................................................................... 164 88,020 164 88,020 004 AMRAAM .......................................................................................................... 113 229,637 113 229,637 005 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ......................................................................... 413 47,675 413 47,675 006 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ................................................................................. 144 42,000 144 42,000 

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 

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

CLASS IV 

008 ADVANCED CRUISE MISSILE ............................................................................ 0 0 009 MM III MODIFICATIONS .................................................................................... 54,794 54,794 010 AGM–65D MAVERICK ....................................................................................... 271 271 011 AGM–88A HARM .............................................................................................. 23,240 23,240 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
341 

012 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ............................................................ 13,620 13,620 013 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ................................................................................. 5,000 5,000 

MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

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

SPACE PROGRAMS 

015 ADVANCED EHF ............................................................................................... 557,205 557,205 016 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 0 0 017 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER SATELLITES(SPACE) ..................................................... 36,835 36,835 018 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 0 0 019 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ................................................................................. 2 410,294 2 410,294 020 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 82,616 82,616 021 SPACEBORNE EQUIP (COMSEC) ...................................................................... 10,554 10,554 022 GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) ........................................................................ 58,147 58,147 023 DEF METEOROLOGICAL SAT PROG(SPACE) ...................................................... 89,022 89,022 024 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH(SPACE) ................................................. 4 1,679,856 4 1,679,856 025 SBIR HIGH (SPACE) ......................................................................................... 2 454,251 2 454,251 026 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ................................................................... 0 0 

SPECIAL PROGRAMS 

028 DEFENSE SPACE RECONN PROGRAM .............................................................. 0 0 030 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAMS .......................................................................... 138,904 138,904 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

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

TOTAL, MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ................................................. 5,491,846 0 5,491,846 PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 

001 ROCKETS ......................................................................................................... 8,927 8,927

CARTRIDGES 

002 CARTRIDGES .................................................................................................... 118,075 118,075 

BOMBS 

003 PRACTICE BOMBS ........................................................................................... 32,393 32,393 004 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ............................................................................ 163,467 163,467 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
342 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

005 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .................................................................... 3,259 101,921 3,259 101,921

FLARE, IR MJU–7B 

006 CAD/PAD .......................................................................................................... 43,829 43,829 

007 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) ......................................................... 7,515 7,515 008 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ........................................................................... 1,003 1,003 009 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................... 5,321 5,321 010 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 5,066 5,066 

FUZES 

011 FLARES ............................................................................................................ 46,010 46,010 012 FUZES .............................................................................................................. 36,444 36,444 

SMALL ARMS 

013 SMALL ARMS ................................................................................................... 29,223 29,223 

TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ................................... 599,194 0 599,194 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

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

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

002 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE ............................................................................ 18,547 18,547 003 CAP VEHICLES ................................................................................................. 932 932 004 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 1,699 1,699 

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

005 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ............................................................... 10,850 10,850 006 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 9,246 9,246 

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

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


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
343 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

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

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

009 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV AND CLEANING EQU .................................................. 1,685 1,685 010 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 17,014 17,014 

CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS 

011 CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS ............................................................. 0 0 

COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMSEC) 

012 COMSEC EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 166,559 166,559 013 MODIFICATIONS (COMSEC) .............................................................................. 1,133 1,133 

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 

014 INTELLIGENCE TRAINING EQUIPMENT .............................................................. 2,749 2,749 015 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 32,876 32,876 016 ADVANCE TECH SENSORS ............................................................................... 877 877 017 MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 15,295 15,295 

ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

018 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS ......................................................... 21,984 21,984 019 NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM .......................................................................... 30,698 30,698 020 BATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM—FIXED ................................................................. 17,368 17,368 021 THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENTS ................................................. 23,483 23,483 022 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST ................................................................ 17,864 17,864 023 STRATEGIC COMMAND AND CONTROL ............................................................ 53,995 53,995 024 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN COMPLEX .................................................................... 14,578 14,578 025 TAC SIGINT SPT ............................................................................................... 208 208 026 DRUG INTERDICTION SPT ................................................................................ 0 0 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

027 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................ 69,743 69,743 028 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & CONTROL SYS ......................................................... 15,829 15,829 029 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL ............................................................... 11,023 11,023 030 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ....................................................... 64,521 64,521 031 COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ............................................................................ 18,217 18,217 032 C3 COUNTERMEASURES .................................................................................. 11,899 11,899 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
344 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

033 GCSS-AF FOS ................................................................................................... 13,920 13,920034 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM ................................................................. 9,365 9,365 035 AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CTR-WPN SYS ...................................................... 33,907 33,907 

AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 

036 INFORMATION TRANSPORT SYSTEMS .............................................................. 52,464 52,464 037 BASE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................................... 0 0 038 AFNET .............................................................................................................. 125,788 125,788 039 VOICE SYSTEMS .............................................................................................. 16,811 16,811 040 USCENTCOM .................................................................................................... 32,138 32,138 

DISA PROGRAMS 

041 SPACE BASED IR SENSOR PGM SPACE .......................................................... 47,135 47,135 042 NAVSTAR GPS SPACE ...................................................................................... 2,031 2,031 043 NUDET DETECTION SYS SPACE ....................................................................... 5,564 5,564 044 AF SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK SPACE ...................................................... 44,219 44,219 045 SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM SPACE ................................................................. 109,545 109,545 046 MILSATCOM SPACE .......................................................................................... 47,592 47,592 047 SPACE MODS SPACE ....................................................................................... 47,121 47,121 048 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM ................................................................................. 20,961 20,961 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

049 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 126,131 126,131 050 COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATER ........................................................... 23,707 23,707 051 RADIO EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 12,757 12,757 052 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 10,716 10,716 053 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................... 74,528 74,528 

MODIFICATIONS 

054 COMM ELECT MODS ........................................................................................ 43,507 43,507 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
345 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

055 NIGHT VISION GOGGLES .................................................................................. 22,693 22,693 056 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 30,887 30,887 

DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ 

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

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

058 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 8,387 8,387 059 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ............................................................................ 10,358 10,358 060 PRODUCTIVITY CAPITAL INVESTMENT .............................................................. 3,473 3,473 061 RAPID IMPROVEMENT PROCUREMENT INOVAT ................................................ 0 0 062 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................... 14,471 14,471 063 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 1,894 1,894 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

065 DARP RC135 ................................................................................................... 24,176 24,176 066 DCGS-AF .......................................................................................................... 142,928 142,928 068 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAM ............................................................................ 479,446 479,446 069 DEFENSE SPACE RECONNAISSANCE PROG. .................................................... 39,155 39,155 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

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

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

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

TOTAL, OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ................................................... 16,720,848 0 16,720,848 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, BTA 

001 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, BTA ................................................................................. 0 0 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCAA 

002 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 1,486 1,486 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA 

003 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 2,129 2,129 

EQUIPMENT 

004 EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................................... 0 0 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
346 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA 

005 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ......................................................................... 6,147 6,147 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

012 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY ................................................................. 12,708 12,708 013 GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM ................................................... 0 0 014 GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................... 3,002 3,002 015 TELEPORT PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 46,992 46,992 016 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 108,462 108,462 017 NET CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) ................................................ 2,865 2,865 018 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK .................................................... 116,906 116,906 019 PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................... 1,827 1,827 020 DRUG INTERDICTION SUPPORT ....................................................................... 0 0 021 CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ........................................................................... 10,319 10,319 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DLA 

022 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 9,575 9,575 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DMACT 

023 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 6 15,179 6 15,179 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA 

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

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY 

025 EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................................... 0 0 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DSS 

026 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 2,522 2,522 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

027 VEHICLES ......................................................................................................... 1 50 1 50 028 OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 3 13,096 3 13,096 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
347 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DTSA 

029 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 0 0 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 

030 THAAD .............................................................................................................. 36 460,728 100,000 36 560,728 

THAAD Interceptors ..................................................................................... [100,000 ] 

031 AEGIS BMD ...................................................................................................... 29 389,626 29 389,626 032 BMDS AN/TPY–2 RADARS ............................................................................... 1 217,244 1 217,244 033 RADAR SPARES ............................................................................................... 10,177 10,177 034 IRON DOME ..................................................................................................... 0 0 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA 

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

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 

042 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD ................................................................................. 45,938 45,938 043 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, INTELLIGENCE ................................................................. 17,582 17,582 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS 

044 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS .................................................................................. 21,878 21,878 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS 

045 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS ................................................................................ 26,550 26,550 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

045A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................... 555,787 555,787 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

046 ROTARY WING UPGRADES AND SUSTAINMENT ................................................ 74,832 74,832 047 MH–47 SERVICE LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM ................................................. 0 0 048 MH–60 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ................................................................ 126,780 126,780 049 NON-STANDARD AVIATION ............................................................................... 7 99,776 –62,776 7 37,000 

Transfer to Line 51 at USSOCOM request ................................................. [–62,776 ] 

050 TANKER RECAPITALIZATION ............................................................................. 0 0 051 U–28 ............................................................................................................... 7,530 109,376 116,906 

Transfer from Line 49 at USSOCOM request ............................................. [62,776 ] USSOCOM UFR ............................................................................................ [46,600 ] 

052 MH–47 CHINOOK ............................................................................................. 7 134,785 7 134,785 053 RQ–11 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE .............................................................. 2,062 2,062 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
348 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

054 CV–22 MODIFICATION ..................................................................................... 4 139,147 4 139,147 055 MQ–1 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ................................................................ 3,963 23,000 26,963 

USSOCOM UFR ............................................................................................ [23,000 ] 

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

USSOCOM UFR ............................................................................................ [35,400 ] 

057 RQ–7 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ................................................................ 0 0 058 STUASL0 .......................................................................................................... 12,945 12,945 059 PRECISION STRIKE PACKAGE .......................................................................... 73,013 73,013 060 AC/MC–130J .................................................................................................... 51,484 51,484061 MQ–8 UAV ....................................................................................................... 0 0 062 C–130 MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................... 25,248 25,248 063 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT ......................................................................................... 5,314 5,314 

SHIPBUILDING 

064 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 23,037 –8,000 15,037 

Transfer to RDDW Line 272 at USSOCOM request .................................... [–8,000 ] 

065 SEAL DELIVERY VEHICLE ................................................................................. 0 0 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

066 ORDNANCE REPLENISHMENT ........................................................................... 113,183 113,183 067 ORDNANCE ACQUISITION ................................................................................. 36,981 36,981 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

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

USSOCOM UFR ............................................................................................ [3,900 ] 

069 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 71,428 71,428 070 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS .......................................................................... 27,108 27,108 071 DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS .................................... 12,767 3,200 15,967 

USSOCOM UFR ............................................................................................ [3,200 ] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
349 

073 MARITIME EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS ........................................................... 0 0 074 COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 42,348 42,348 075 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ........................................................................... 600 600 077 TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................ 37,421 37,421 078 MISSION TRAINING AND PREPARATION SYSTEMS ........................................... 36,949 5,000 41,949 

USSOCOM UFR ............................................................................................ [5,000 ] 

079 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS .................................................................. 20,255 20,255 080 MILCON COLLATERAL EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 17,590 17,590 082 AUTOMATION SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 66,573 66,573 083 GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ..................................................... 6,549 6,549 084 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ............................................... 32,335 32,335 085 SOLDIER PROTECTION AND SURVIVAL SYSTEMS ............................................ 15,153 15,153 086 VISUAL AUGMENTATION LASERS AND SENSOR SYSTEMS ............................... 33,920 33,920 087 TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 75,132 75,132 088 MARITIME EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................... 0 0 089 DRUG INTERDICTION ....................................................................................... 0 0 090 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 6,667 6,667 091 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ....................................................................... 217,972 25,300 243,272 

USSOCOM UFR ............................................................................................ [25,300 ] 

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

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

092A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................... 0 0 

CBDP 

093 INSTALLATION FORCE PROTECTION ................................................................. 24,025 24,025 094 INDIVIDUAL PROTECTION ................................................................................. 73,720 73,720 095 DECONTAMINATION .......................................................................................... 506 506 096 JOINT BIO DEFENSE PROGRAM (MEDICAL) ..................................................... 32,597 32,597 097 COLLECTIVE PROTECTION ................................................................................ 3,144 3,144 098 CONTAMINATION AVOIDANCE ........................................................................... 164,886 164,886 

TOTAL, PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE ......................................................... 4,187,935 234,400 4,422,335 NATIONAL GUARD & RESERVE EQUIPMENT 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
350 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

ARMY RESERVE 

001 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 0 

NAVY RESERVE 

002 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 0 

MARINE CORPS RESERVE 

003 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 0 

AIR FORCE RESERVE 

004 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 0 

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

005 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 0 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD 

006 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 0 

NATIONAL GUARD AIRCRAFT 

007 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 0 

TOTAL, NATIONAL GUARD & RESERVE EQUIPMENT ........................................ 0 0 0 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

001 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .................................................... 99,477 99,477 

TOTAL, JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND ....................................... 99,477 0 99,477 TOTAL, PROCUREMENT .................................................................................... 97,432,379 –473,216 96,959,163 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
351 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ROTARY 

009 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD ......................................................... 2 71,000 –2 –71,000 0 0 

Funding ahead of need .............................................................................. [–2] [–71,000 ] 

012 KIOWA WARRIOR (OH–58F) WRA ..................................................................... 16 183,900 16 183,900 015 CH–47 HELICOPTER ........................................................................................ 6 231,300 6 231,300

TOTAL, AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ....................................................... 486,200 –71,000 415,200 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

004 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY ................................................................................ 161 29,100 161 29,100 008 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ..................................................................... 186 20,553 186 20,553 

TOTAL, MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY .......................................................... 49,653 0 49,653 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 

036 M16 RIFLE MODS ............................................................................................ 15,422 15,422 

TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ..................................................... 15,422 0 15,422 PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

003 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ............................................................................ 1,500 1,500 004 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 10,000 10,000 007 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES .................................................................................. 80,000 80,000 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

009 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ............................................................................ 14,000 14,000 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
352 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

010 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ............................................................................ 6,000 6,000 011 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES .......................................................................... 56,000 56,000 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

013 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM AND 105MM, ALL TYP ................................. 29,956 29,956 014 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES .................................................. 37,044 37,044 015 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE XM982 ......................................................... 12,300 12,300 016 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ................................... 17,000 17,000 

MINES 

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

ROCKETS 

020 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ..................................................................... 63,635 63,635 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

023 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES ....................................................................................... 16,858 16,858 

MISCELLANEOUS 

028 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 1,200 1,200 

PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ............................................ 357,493 0 357,493 OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

002 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) .................................................... 223 28,247 223 28,247 004 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ............................................... 2,050 2,050 011 HMMWV RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM ........................................................... 2,128 271,000 2,128 271,000 014 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS ................................... 927,400 927,400 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

052 RESERVE CA/MISO GPF EQUIPMENT ............................................................... –660 8,000 –660 8,000 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
353 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

061 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM( ................................. 25,000 40,000 65,000 

Transfer from OMA OCO at SOUTHCOM request ........................................ [40,000 ] 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

069 DCGS–A (MIP) ................................................................................................. 960 90,355 960 90,355 073 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRINTING AND COLLECTION ............................................ 6,516 6,516 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

075 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR ....................................................... 27,646 27,646 077 FMLY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITIES ...................................... 52,000 52,000 078 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES ................................ 205,209 205,209 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

092 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (FIREFINDER RADARS) ............................................... 14,600 14,600 099 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) ..................................................................... –5,400 66,100 –5,400 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 39,700145 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 4 428 153 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (MAINT EQ) .................................................... 30 30 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
354 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

175 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT .......................................................... 7,000 7,000 176 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM .................................................................... –202 27,250 –202 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 –7,000 91,167 

Slow execution of prior years appropriations ............................................ [–37,000 ] Solar power units ....................................................................................... [30,000 ] 

TOTAL, OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ............................................................ 2,015,907 33,000 2,048,907 

JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND NETWORK ATTACK 

001 ATTACK THE NETWORK .................................................................................... 950,500 –100,000 850,500 

Program decrease—under execution ......................................................... [–100,000 ] 

JIEDDO DEVICE DEFEAT 

002 DEFEAT THE DEVICE ........................................................................................ 400,000 –50,000 350,000 

Program decrease—under execution & program delays ........................... [–50,000 ] 

FORCE TRAINING 

003 TRAIN THE FORCE ........................................................................................... 149,500 –21,000 128,500 

Program decrease—under execution & program delays ........................... [–21,000 ] 

STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

004 OPERATIONS .................................................................................................... 175,400 198,414 373,814 

Transfer from Base .................................................................................... [227,414 ] Program decrease—excessive contractor service support ........................ [–29,000 ] 

TOTAL, JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND ....................................... 1,675,400 27,414 1,702,814 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
355 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

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

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

030 AV–8 SERIES ................................................................................................... 42,238 42,238032 F–18 SERIES ................................................................................................... 41,243 41,243035 H–53 SERIES ................................................................................................... 15,870 15,870038 EP–3 SERIES ................................................................................................... 13,030 13,030043 C–130 SERIES ................................................................................................. 16,737 16,737 048 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ........................................................................... 2,714 2,714 054 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ......................................................................... 570 570 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 

062 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 2,380 2,380 

TOTAL, AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................................ 164,582 0 164,582 WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY TACTICAL MISSILES 

009 HELLFIRE ......................................................................................................... 212 17,000 212 17,000 010 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM) .................................... 50 6,500 50 6,500 

TOTAL, WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................................ 23,500 0 23,500 PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

001 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ............................................................................ 18,000 18,000 002 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .................................................................... 80,200 80,200 003 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION ........................................................................... 21,500 21,500 006 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ........................................................... 20,303 20,303 011 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ....................................................................... 532 532 012 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ......................................................... 2,643 2,643 013 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ..................................................................... 2,322 2,322 014 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ............................................................. 6,308 6,308 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
356 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

015 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION ............................................................................. 10,948 10,948 016 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES ......................................................................... 9,940 9,940 017 40MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 5,963 5,963 020 120MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 11,605 11,605 021 CTG 25MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 2,831 2,831 022 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 2,359 2,359 023 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 3,051 3,051 024 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 54,886 54,886 025 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES .............................................................. 1,391 1,391 026 FUZE, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................. 30,945 30,945 027 NON LETHALS .................................................................................................. 8 8 029 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 12 12 

TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ............................................. 285,747 0 285,747 OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

070 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 3,603 3,603 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

097 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
357 

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

149 C4ISR EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 151 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 9,323 9,323 

TOTAL, OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ............................................................. 98,882 0 98,882 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

002 LAV PIP ............................................................................................................ 10,000 10,000 

ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 

005 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM .................................................. 108,860 108,860 

GUIDED MISSILES 

010 JAVELIN ............................................................................................................ 29,158 29,158 

OTHER SUPPORT 

013 MODIFICATION KITS ......................................................................................... 41,602 41,602 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 

015 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 13,632 13,632 

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

017 MODIFICATION KITS ......................................................................................... 2,831 2,831 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

019 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 51 15,575 51 15,575 

RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

020 RADAR SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 8,015 8,015 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

023 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................. 35,310 35,310 

OTHER COMM/ELEC EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

029 NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 332 652 332 652 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

030 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES .................................................................. 25 19,807 25 19,807 032 RADIO SYSTEMS .............................................................................................. 74 36,482 74 36,482 033 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS ....................................................... 4 41,295 4 41,295 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

039 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT ................................................... 32 10,466 32 10,466 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
358 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

041 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS ...................................................................... 7,642 7,642 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

045 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 18,239 18,239 046 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 51,359 51,359 047 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ....................................................................... 20,247 20,247 049 EOD SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 207 362,658 207 362,658 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

050 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 55,500 55,500 052 MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ............................................................................ 19,100 19,100 

GENERAL PROPERTY 

054 FIELD MEDICAL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 15,751 15,751 055 TRAINING DEVICES .......................................................................................... 3,602 3,602 057 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 15,900 15,900 

TOTAL, PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ........................................................ 943,683 0 943,683 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

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

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

055 U–2 MODS ....................................................................................................... 46,800 46,800 063 C–130 ............................................................................................................. 11,400 11,400 067 COMPASS CALL MODS ..................................................................................... 14,000 14,000 068 RC–135 ........................................................................................................... 8,000 8,000 075 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ........................................................................... 4,700 4,700 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

081 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ....................................................................... 21,900 21,900 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
359 

OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 

099 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ....................................................................... 59,000 59,000 

TOTAL, AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................. 305,600 0 305,600 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL 

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

TOTAL, MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ................................................. 34,350 0 34,350 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE CARTRIDGES 

002 CARTRIDGES .................................................................................................... 13,592 13,592

BOMBS 

004 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ............................................................................ 23,211 23,211 005 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .................................................................... 1,419 53,923 1,419 53,923 

FLARE, IR MJU–7B 

006 CAD/PAD .......................................................................................................... 2,638 2,638 010 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 2,600 2,600 

FUZES 

011 FLARES ............................................................................................................ 11,726 11,726 012 FUZES .............................................................................................................. 8,513 8,513 

TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ................................... 116,203 0 116,203 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

002 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE ............................................................................ 2,010 2,010 004 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 2,675 2,675 

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

006 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 2,557 2,557 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

008 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 4,329 4,329 

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
360 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

009 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV AND CLEANING EQU .................................................. 984 984 010 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 9,120 9,120 

ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

022 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST ................................................................ 5,600 5,600 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

027 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................ 11,157 11,157 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

049 TACTICAL C–E EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 7,000 7,000 053 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................... 10,654 10,654 

MODIFICATIONS 

054 COMM ELECT MODS ........................................................................................ 8,000 8,000 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

055 NIGHT VISION GOGGLES .................................................................................. 902 902 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

059 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ............................................................................ 60,090 60,090 062 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................... 9,400 9,400 063 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ........................................................................ 9,175 9,175 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

069A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................... 2,672,317 2,672,317 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

071 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ........................................................................... 2,300 2,300 

TOTAL, OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ................................................... 2,818,270 0 2,818,270 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

015 TELEPORT PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 5,260 5,260 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
361 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

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

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

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

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

068 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRONICS ........................................ 4 151 4 151 069 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 41 30,528 41 30,528 077 TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................ 54 1,843 54 1,843 082 AUTOMATION SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 1 1,000 1 1,000 086 VISUAL AUGMENTATION LASERS AND SENSOR SYSTEMS ............................... 12 108 12 108 091 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ....................................................................... 31 14,758 31 14,758 

TOTAL, PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE ......................................................... 196,349 0 196,349 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

001 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .................................................... 100,000 100,000 

TOTAL, JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND ....................................... 100,000 0 100,000 

TOTAL, PROCUREMENT .................................................................................... 9,687,241 –10,586 9,676,655 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(363) 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
364 

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 Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY BASIC RESEARCH 

001 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ........................................................................... 20,860 20,860 

002 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ......................................................................................................... 219,180 219,180 003 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................... 80,986 80,986 004 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS ............................................................................ 123,045 123,045 

SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH ............................................................................................................ 444,071 0 444,071 APPLIED RESEARCH 

005 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 29,041 29,041 

006 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY ...................................................................................... 45,260 45,260 007 0602122A TRACTOR HIP ...................................................................................................................................... 22,439 22,439 008 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 51,607 51,607 009 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 15,068 15,068 010 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 49,383 49,383 011 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................... 25,999 25,999 012 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND SIMULATION ........................................................................................... 23,507 23,507 013 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................... 69,062 69,062 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
365 

014 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 60,823 60,823 015 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND EQUIPMENT DEFEATING TECHNOLOGY ........................................................ 4,465 4,465 016 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 7,169 7,169 017 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 35,218 35,218 018 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES ......................................................................................... 60,300 60,300 019 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 53,244 53,244 020 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................... 18,850 18,850 021 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 19,872 19,872 022 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 20,095 20,095 023 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................... 28,852 28,852 024 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 9,830 9,830 025 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................... 70,693 70,693 026 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 17,781 17,781 027 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 28,281 28,281 028 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 107,891 107,891 

SUBTOTAL, APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................................................ 874,730 0 874,730 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

029 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 39,359 39,359 

030 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................... 69,580 69,580 031 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................... 64,215 64,215 032 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................... 67,613 67,613 033 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................ 104,359 104,359 

034 0603006A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 4,157 4,157 035 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................. 9,856 9,856 036 0603008A ELECTRONIC WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................. 50,661 50,661 037 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE .................................................................................................................................... 9,126 9,126 038 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & SIMULATION SYSTEMS .................................................................... 17,257 17,257 039 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE .................................................................................................................................. 9,925 9,925 040 0603105A MILITARY HIV RESEARCH ................................................................................................................... 6,984 6,984 041 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM—TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 9,716 9,716 042 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL .................................................................................................................................... 3,487 3,487 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
366 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

043 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS .................................................................................................................................. 2,323 2,323 044 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 21,683 21,683 045 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 71,111 71,111 046 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE .................................................................................................................................. 10,902 10,902 047 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ......................................................... 180,582 180,582 048 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 27,204 27,204 049 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 6,095 6,095 050 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................ 37,217 37,217 051 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ............................................................. 13,626 13,626 052 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 28,458 28,458 053 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY .......................................... 25,226 25,226 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 890,722 0 890,722 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

054 0603305A ARMY MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION .............................................................................. 14,505 14,505 

055 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ................................................................................................ 9,876 9,876 056 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER—ADV DEV ................................................................................ 5,054 5,054 057 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND TARGET DEFEATING SYS—ADV DEV ........................................................ 2,725 2,725 

058 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION ....................................................................................... 30,560 30,560 059 0603653A ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT SYSTEM (ATAS) ................................................................................... 14,347 14,347 060 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY ............................................................................................ 10,073 10,073 061 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—ADV DEV ............................................................. 8,660 8,660 062 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 10,715 10,715 063 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—DEM/VAL ......................................................................... 4,631 4,631 064 0603782A WARFIGHTER INFORMATION NETWORK-TACTICAL—DEM/VAL ............................................................ 278,018 278,018 065 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 4,961 4,961 066 0603801A AVIATION—ADV DEV .......................................................................................................................... 8,602 8,602 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
367 

067 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ADV DEV ........................................................................... 14,605 14,605 068 0603805A COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT CONTROL SYSTEM EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS ................................... 5,054 5,054 069 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS—ADV DEV .......................................................................................................... 24,384 24,384 070 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 32,050 32,050 071 0603850A INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE .................................................................................................... 96 96 072 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ............................................................................................. 24,868 24,868 073 0604131A TRACTOR JUTE .................................................................................................................................... 59 59 074 0604284A JOINT COOPERATIVE TARGET IDENTIFICATION—GROUND (JCTI-G)/TECHNOLOGY DEV ..................... 0 0 075 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2–INTERCEPT (IFPC2) ................................... 76,039 76,039 076 0604775A DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 0 0 077 0604785A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE (BUDGET ACTIVITY 4) .......................................................................... 4,043 4,043 078 0305205A ENDURANCE UAVS .............................................................................................................................. 26,196 26,196 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................... 610,121 0 610,121 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

079 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS ........................................................................................................................... 78,538 78,538 

080 0604220A ARMED, DEPLOYABLE HELOS ............................................................................................................. 90,494 90,494 081 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 181,347 181,347 082 0604280A JOINT TACTICAL RADIO ....................................................................................................................... 0 0 083 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) .......................................................................... 12,636 12,636 084 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM ........................................................................................................ 5,694 5,694 085 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE .................................................................................................................................. 32,095 32,095 086 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS ........................................................................................................... 96,478 96,478 087 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES ............................................................................................................. 3,006 3,006 088 0604609A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND TARGET DEFEATING SYS—ENG DEV ....................................................... 0 0 089 0604611A JAVELIN ............................................................................................................................................... 5,040 5,040 090 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES ............................................................................................. 3,077 3,077 091 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ....................................................................................................................... 9,769 9,769 092 0604641A TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE (TUGV) .............................................................................. 13,141 12,000 25,141 

Transfer from OPA line 191 at Army request ............................................................................... [12,000 ] 

093 0604642A LIGHT TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES ................................................................................................ 0 0 094 0604661A FCS SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS ENGR & PROGRAM MGMT ..................................................................... 0 0


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
368 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

095 0604662A FCS RECONNAISSANCE (UAV) PLATFORMS ........................................................................................ 0 0 096 0604663A FCS UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLES ................................................................................................. 0 0 097 0604664A FCS UNATTENDED GROUND SENSORS ............................................................................................... 0 0 098 0604665A FCS SUSTAINMENT & TRAINING R&D ................................................................................................ 0 0 099 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 1,008 103 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE—ENG DEV ................................................ 73,333 73,333104 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 4,346 115 0604817A COMBAT IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................................................... 0 0 116 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE .................................................. 77,223 77,223117 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................ 3,486 3,486 118 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS) ................................................................ 9,963 17,200 27,163 

GFEBS realignment per Army request .......................................................................................... [17,200 ] 

119 0604823A FIREFINDER ........................................................................................................................................ 20,517 20,517 120 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—WARRIOR DEM/VAL ........................................................................................... 51,851 51,851 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
369 

121 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS—EMD ............................................................................................................... 167,797 167,797 122 0604869A PATRIOT/MEADS COMBINED AGGREGATE PROGRAM (CAP) ............................................................... 400,861 –400,861 0 

No funds authorized ...................................................................................................................... [–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 10,000 127 0605455A SLAMRAAM ......................................................................................................................................... 0 0 128 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 ................................................................................................................ 639,874 639,874 131 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 –371,661 2,914,968 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 27,902 141 0605502A SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 0 0 142 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 44,753 145 0605605A DOD HIGH ENERGY LASER TEST FACILITY ......................................................................................... 0 0 146 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
370 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

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 18,524 158 0909999A FINANCING FOR CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS ...................................................................... 0 0 

SUBTOTAL, RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 1,153,980 0 1,153,980 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

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

160 0607665A FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS ..................................................................................................................... 0 0 161 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT ..................................................................................................... 109,978 109,978 162 0102419A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT OFFICE ..................................................................................................... 190,422 190,422 163 0203347A INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO CYBER (ISC) MIP .................................................................................. 0 0 164 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 –54,000 226,247 

Improved turbine engine program delay ...................................................................................... [–54,000 ] 

168 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................... 898 898 

169 0203758A DIGITIZATION ...................................................................................................................................... 35,180 35,180 170 0203759A FORCE XXI BATTLE COMMAND, BRIGADE AND BELOW (FBCB2) ....................................................... 0 0 171 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .............................................................. 20,733 20,733 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
371 

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 

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

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 1,669,162 –54,000 1,615,162 TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................................................................. 8,929,415 –425,661 8,503,754 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY BASIC RESEARCH 

001 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................... 113,690 113,690 

002 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ........................................................................... 18,261 18,261 003 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ......................................................................................................... 473,070 473,070 

SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH ............................................................................................................ 605,021 0 605,021 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

004 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 89,189 89,189 

005 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 143,301 143,301 006 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 46,528 46,528 007 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................................................ 41,696 41,696 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
372 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

008 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT APPLIED RESEARCH .............................................................................. 44,127 44,127 009 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................... 78,228 78,228 010 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ................................................................ 49,635 49,635 011 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................... 5,973 5,973 012 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 96,814 96,814 013 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................... 162,417 162,417 014 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................... 32,394 32,394 

SUBTOTAL, APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................................................ 790,302 0 790,302 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

015 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 56,543 56,543 

016 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 18,616 18,616 017 0603235N COMMON PICTURE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 0 0 018 0603236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 0 0 019 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................... 54,858 54,858 020 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) .................................................................. 130,598 130,598 021 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................. 11,706 11,706 022 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................... 256,382 256,382 023 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................ 3,880 3,880 024 0603747N UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 0 0 025 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING EXPERIMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS .............................................................. 51,819 51,819 026 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 0 0 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 584,402 0 584,402 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

027 0603128N UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM .............................................................................................................. 0 0 

028 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL APPLICATIONS .................................................................................................. 34,085 34,085 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
373 

029 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................................................... 8,783 8,783 030 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND AND CONTROL .................................................................................. 3,773 3,773 031 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................ 24,512 24,512 032 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 8,090 8,090 033 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE ............................................................................................ 5,301 5,301 034 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 1,506 1,506 035 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................ 190,622 190,622 036 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE .................................................................................................... 93,346 93,346 037 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 108,871 108,871 038 0603513N SHIPBOARD SYSTEM COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 0 0 039 0603525N PILOT FISH .......................................................................................................................................... 101,169 101,169 040 0603527N RETRACT LARCH ................................................................................................................................. 74,312 74,312 041 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER .............................................................................................................................. 90,730 90,730 042 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL .................................................................................................................... 777 777 043 0603553N SURFACE ASW .................................................................................................................................... 6,704 6,704 044 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 555,123 555,123 045 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 9,368 9,368 046 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN .................................................................................................... 24,609 24,609 047 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY STUDIES ......................................................................... 13,710 13,710 048 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 249,748 249,748 049 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 29,897 29,897 050 0603576N CHALK EAGLE ..................................................................................................................................... 509,988 509,988 051 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS) ........................................................................................................... 429,420 429,420 052 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ......................................................................................................... 56,551 56,551 053 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS ................................................................................................................ 7,342 7,342 054 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES .................................................................................................. 95,182 95,182 055 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM ....................................................................... 10,496 10,496 056 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 52,331 52,331 057 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 56,512 56,512 058 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 7,029 7,029 059 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ........................................................................................................... 21,080 21,080 060 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................... 55,324 55,324 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
374 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

061 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................................................. 3,401 3,401 062 0603734N CHALK CORAL ..................................................................................................................................... 45,966 45,966 063 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY ........................................................................................................... 3,811 3,811 064 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE ................................................................................................................................. 341,305 341,305 065 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA .................................................................................................................................. 181,220 181,220 066 0603751N RETRACT ELM ..................................................................................................................................... 174,014 174,014 067 0603755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE—DEM/VAL ........................................................................................................ 0 0 068 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN ............................................................................................................................... 68,654 68,654 069 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES .......................................................................................................................... 44,487 44,487 070 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 9,389 9,389 071 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 16,132 16,132 072 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TESTING .............................................................................................. 44,994 44,994 073 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEMS—DEM/VAL ................................................... 137,369 137,369 074 0603889N COUNTERDRUG RDT&E PROJECTS ..................................................................................................... 0 0 075 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 0 0 076 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM) .......................................... 73,934 73,934077 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION OPTIMIZATION ............................................................................................... 711 711 078 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO CONTROLLED IED ELECTRONIC WARFARE (JCREW) ..................................... 71,300 71,300 079 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ................................................................... 5,654 5,654 080 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING SUPPORT ........................ 31,549 31,549 081 0604775N DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 0 0 082 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT ......................................................... 86,801 86,801 083 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH .... 44,500 44,500 084 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT—MIP ................................................................................................. 13,172 13,172 085 0303562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEMS—MIP ............................................................................. 0 0 086 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT—MIP .................................................................................... 643 643 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................... 4,335,297 0 4,335,297 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
375 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

087 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................. 33,978 33,978 

088 0604214N AV–8B AIRCRAFT—ENG DEV ............................................................................................................. 32,789 32,789 089 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................ 84,988 84,988 090 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... 6,866 6,866 091 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING ............................................................................................... 4,060 4,060 092 0604221N P–3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 3,451 3,451 093 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM .............................................................................................................. 13,071 13,071 094 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 71,645 71,645 095 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE ......................................................................................................................... 119,065 119,065 096 0604245N H–1 UPGRADES .................................................................................................................................. 31,105 31,105 097 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS ............................................................................................................. 34,299 34,299 098 0604262N V–22A ................................................................................................................................................. 54,412 54,412 099 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 .................................................................... 260,616 260,616 106 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 ......... 122,481 122,481 113 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
376 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

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) .................................................................................. 151,489 151,489 130 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING .............................................................................................................. 0 0 131 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 72,209 137 0605018N NAVY INTEGRATED MILITARY HUMAN RESOURCES SYSTEM (N-IMHRS) ............................................ 0 0 138 0605212N CH–53K RDTE .................................................................................................................................... 606,204 606,204 139 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) ............................................................................................. 0 0 140 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 1,170 143 0304503N SSN–688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION—MIP ................................................................................ 0 0 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
377 

144 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 23,255 23,255 145 0305124N SPECIAL APPLICATIONS PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 0 0 

SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION .................................................................. 5,747,232 0 5,747,232 

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 46,856 152 0605502N SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 0 0 153 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 2,795 164 0804758N SERVICE SUPPORT TO JFCOM, JNTC .................................................................................................. 0 0 165 0909999N FINANCING FOR CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS ...................................................................... 0 0 

SUBTOTAL, RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 845,077 0 845,077 OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

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

168 0604717M MARINE CORPS COMBAT SERVICES SUPPORT .................................................................................. 0 0 169 0604766M MARINE CORPS DATA SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................... 0 0 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
378 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

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 11,265 180 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 3,450 192 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
379 

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 16,749 206 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................... 26,307 26,307 207 0303150M WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM ...................................................................... 500 500 208 0303238N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK ENTERPRISE SERVICES (CANES)—MIP ...................................... 0 0 210 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 9,066 214 0305206N AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 0 215 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 .......................................................................................................................................... 863 863 222 0305234M SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL UAS (STUASL0) ...................................................................................... 0 0 223 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL UAS (STUASL0) ...................................................................................... 9,734 9,734 224 0305237N MEDIUM RANGE MARITIME UAS ......................................................................................................... 0 0 225 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 27,391 228 0702239N AVIONICS COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................. 0 0 229 0708011N INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS .............................................................................................................. 54,879 54,879 230 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY (MARITECH) ................................................................................................. 5,000 5,000 

230A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 1,151,159 1,151,159 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 3,975,546 0 3,975,546 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
380 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

230B PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS ........................................................................................................................ –8,832 –8,832 

Medium range maritime UAS cancellation ................................................................................... [–8,832 ] 

TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY .................................................................. 16,882,877 –8,832 16,874,045 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF BASIC RESEARCH 

001 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ......................................................................................................... 361,787 361,787 

002 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................... 141,153 141,153 003 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................... 13,094 13,094 

SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH ............................................................................................................ 516,034 0 516,034 APPLIED RESEARCH 

004 0602102F MATERIALS ......................................................................................................................................... 114,166 114,166 

005 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................................ 120,719 120,719 006 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................... 89,319 89,319 007 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION ................................................................................................................... 232,547 232,547 008 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS ........................................................................................................................ 127,637 127,637 009 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 98,375 98,375 010 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS ................................................................................................................ 77,175 77,175 011 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 106,196 106,196 012 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION SCIENCES AND METHODS ......................................................................... 104,362 104,362 013 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 38,557 38,557 

SUBTOTAL, APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................................................ 1,109,053 0 1,109,053 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

014 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 47,890 47,890 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
381 

015 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) ............................................................................. 6,565 6,565 016 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS ..................................................................................................... 37,657 37,657 017 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/DEMO ............................................................................................... 81,376 81,376 018 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................... 151,152 151,152 019 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................. 32,941 32,941 020 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 64,557 64,557 021 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (MSSS) ................................................................................... 29,256 29,256 022 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................... 21,523 21,523 023 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 36,352 36,352 024 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................... 19,004 19,004 025 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 37,045 37,045 026 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................... 31,419 31,419 027 0603924F HIGH ENERGY LASER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ............................................................... 0 0 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 596,737 0 596,737 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

028 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 3,866 3,866 

029 0603287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................................... 3,704 3,704 030 0603430F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM (SPACE) ................................................................................................ 229,171 –1,500 227,671 

Excess funding .............................................................................................................................. [–1,500 ] 

031 0603432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE) .............................................................................................................. 120,676 120,676 032 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 25,144 –2,000 23,144 

Excess funding .............................................................................................................................. [–2,000 ] 

033 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 32,243 32,243 034 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 4,507 4,507 035 0603791F INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATIVE R&D ....................................................................................... 652 652 036 0603830F SPACE PROTECTION PROGRAM (SPP) ................................................................................................ 10,429 10,429 037 0603850F INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE—DEM/VAL ................................................................................. 19,938 19,938 038 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—DEM/VAL .......................................................................... 71,181 71,181 039 0603854F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM RDT&E (SPACE) ................................................................................... 12,027 12,027 040 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION—DEM/VAL .................................................................................................. 2,054 2,054 041 0603860F JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEMS—DEM/VAL ................................................... 57,975 57,975 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
382 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

042 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE .......................................................................................................................... 291,742 291,742 043 0604283F BATTLE MGMT COM & CTRL SENSOR DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 114,417 114,417 044 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .................................................................................................................... 2,576 2,576 045 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM (HDBTDS) PROGRAM .................................... 16,711 16,711 046 0604330F JOINT DUAL ROLE AIR DOMINANCE MISSILE ..................................................................................... 0 0 047 0604337F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND MATURATION .................................................................................... 16,343 16,343 048 0604422F WEATHER SATELLITE FOLLOW-ON ...................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 049 0604436F NEXT-GENERATION MILSATCOM TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .......................................................... 0 0 050 0604635F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS FUZE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 9,423 9,423 051 0604775F DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 0 0 052 0604796F ALTERNATIVE FUELS ........................................................................................................................... 0 0 053 0604830F AUTOMATED AIR-TO-AIR REFUELING .................................................................................................. 0 0 054 0604857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE ................................................................................................. 0 45,000 45,000 

Restore Operationally Responsive Space ...................................................................................... [45,000 ] 

055 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM ............................................................................................................. 37,558 –3,000 34,558 

Excess funding .............................................................................................................................. [–3,000 ] 

056 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE) ............................................. 96,840 96,840 

057 0305178F NATIONAL POLAR-ORBITING OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SYSTEM (NPOESS) ............ 0 0 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................... 1,181,177 38,500 1,219,677 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

058 0603840F GLOBAL BROADCAST SERVICE (GBS) ................................................................................................ 14,652 14,652 

059 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................... 25,713 25,713 060 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING ............................................................................. 6,583 6,583 061 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 1,975 1,975 062 0604280F JOINT TACTICAL RADIO ....................................................................................................................... 2,594 2,594 063 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................... 24,534 24,534 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
383 

064 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................................... 51 51 065 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)—EMD .............................................................................................. 143,000 143,000 066 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 28,797 28,797 067 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 267,252 –20,000 247,252 

Excess funding .............................................................................................................................. [–20,000 ] 

068 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK ........................................................................................................ 4,118 4,118 069 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD ...................................................................... 448,594 –2,000 446,594 

Excess funding .............................................................................................................................. [–2,000 ] 

070 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 9,951 9,951 071 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS ................................................................................................................................... 2,567 2,567 072 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT ................................................................................................................... 13,059 13,059 073 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................... 9,720 9,720 074 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ............................................................................................................... 9,222 9,222 075 0604740F INTEGRATED COMMAND & CONTROL APPLICATIONS (IC2A) .............................................................. 0 0 076 0604750F INTELLIGENCE EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................................. 803 803 077 0604800F F–35—EMD ....................................................................................................................................... 1,210,306 1,210,306 078 0604851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—EMD ................................................................................. 135,437 135,437 079 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)—EMD .............................................. 7,980 7,980 080 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON ...................................................................................................... 2,004 2,004 081 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION .............................................................................................................. 73,512 73,512 082 0605213F F–22 MODERNIZATION INCREMENT 3.2B .......................................................................................... 140,100 140,100 083 0605221F NEXT GENERATION AERIAL REFUELING AIRCRAFT ............................................................................. 1,815,588 –87,130 1,728,458 

Excess prior year funds ................................................................................................................. [–87,130 ] 

084 0605229F CSAR HH–60 RECAPITALIZATION ....................................................................................................... 123,210 123,210 085 0605278F HC/MC–130 RECAP RDT&E ................................................................................................................ 19,039 19,039 086 0605931F B–2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............................................................................................ 281,056 281,056 087 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................ 80,200 80,200 088 0207100F LIGHT ATTACK ARMED RECONNAISSANCE (LAAR) SQUADRONS ........................................................ 0 0 089 0207604F READINESS TRAINING RANGES, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE .................................................... 310 310 090 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION TRAINING ..................................................................................................... 14,861 14,861 091 0305230F MC–12 ................................................................................................................................................ 19,949 19,949 092 0401138F C–27J AIRLIFT SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................... 0 0 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
384 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

093 0401318F CV–22 ................................................................................................................................................ 28,027 28,027 094 0401845F AIRBORNE SENIOR LEADER C3 (SLC3S) ............................................................................................ 1,960 1,960 

SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION .................................................................. 4,966,724 –109,130 4,857,594 RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

095 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 22,812 22,812 

096 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................... 42,236 42,236 097 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................ 25,579 25,579 098 0605502F SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 0 0 099 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 16,200 102 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) ............................................................................................................. 10,051 35,000 45,051 

Restore Space Test Program ......................................................................................................... [35,000 ] 

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 1,294 109 0909980F JUDGMENT FUND REIMBURSEMENT ................................................................................................... 0 0 110 0909999F FINANCING FOR CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS ...................................................................... 0 0 111 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................ 3,851 3,851 

SUBTOTAL, RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 1,190,349 35,000 1,225,349 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

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


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
385 

Excess funding .............................................................................................................................. [–1,500 ] 

113 0604263F COMMON VERTICAL LIFT SUPPORT PLATFORM .................................................................................. 0 0 

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 –15,000 20,970 

Efficiencies .................................................................................................................................... [–15,000 ] 

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 5,609 125 0102823F STRATEGIC AEROSPACE INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM ACTIVITIES ............................................................. 0 0126 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 8,117 135 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 ............................................................... 187,984 187,984 144 0207277F ISR INNOVATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 0 0 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
386 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

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 5,767 150 0207423F ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 0 0 152 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM ACTIVITIES ............................................................................... 5,756 5,756 153 0207438F THEATER BATTLE MANAGEMENT (TBM) C4I ....................................................................................... 0 0 154 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY-MOD ................................................................................................. 16,226 16,226 155 0207445F FIGHTER TACTICAL DATA LINK ........................................................................................................... 0 0 156 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 66,888 174 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
387 

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 43,187 191 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 8,760 204 0305193F INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) ........................................................... 0 0 205 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 38,094 214 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
388 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

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 19,586 222 0307141F INFORMATION OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION & TOOL DEVELOPMENT ............................. 0 0 223 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) ..................................................................................................... 100 100 230 0401218F KC–135S ............................................................................................................................................ 0 0 231 0401219F KC–10S .............................................................................................................................................. 24,022 24,022 232 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT ........................................................................................................ 7,471 7,471 233 0401315F C-STOL AIRCRAFT ............................................................................................................................... 0 0 234 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 15,873 239 0801711F RECRUITING ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................................... 0 0 240 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING .................................................................................................................... 349 349 241 0804757F JOINT NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER ................................................................................................... 0 0 242 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
389 

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 ................................................... 100,160 100,160 249 0902998F MANAGEMENT HQ—ADP SUPPORT (AF) ............................................................................................ 0 0 

249A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 11,172,183 –22,600 11,149,583 

Classified reduction ...................................................................................................................... [–4,600 ] Classified reduction ...................................................................................................................... [–18,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 15,867,972 –39,100 15,828,872 

249B PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS ........................................................................................................................ –78,426 –78,426 

C–130 AMP cancellation ............................................................................................................... [–6,509 ] 

MALD II Cancellation ..................................................................................................................... [–7,917 ] Global Hawk Block 30 cancellation .............................................................................................. [–64,000 ] 

TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ...................................................................... 25,428,046 –153,156 25,274,890 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW BASIC RESEARCH 

001 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVE .................................................................................................... 45,071 45,071 

002 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ......................................................................................................... 309,051 309,051 003 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES ............................................................................................................ 19,405 19,405 004 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH SCIENCE ......................................................................... 39,676 39,676 005 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 87,979 87,979 006 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ............................................................................. 50,566 50,566 

SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH ............................................................................................................ 551,748 0 551,748 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

007 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 20,615 20,615 

008 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 110,900 110,900 009 0602228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (HBCU) SCIENCE ............................................ 0 0 010 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM ................................................................................... 36,826 36,826 011 0602250D8Z SYSTEMS 2020 APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................................. 7,898 7,898 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
390 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

012 0602303E INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 392,421 392,421 013 0602304E COGNITIVE COMPUTING SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................... 30,424 30,424 014 0602305E MACHINE INTELLIGENCE ..................................................................................................................... 0 0 015 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE ........................................................................................................ 19,236 19,236 016 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ............................................................................. 223,269 223,269 017 0602663D8Z DATA TO DECISIONS APPLIED RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 13,753 13,753 018 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH ............................................................................................................. 18,985 18,985 019 0602670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB) APPLIED RESEARCH ........................ 6,771 6,771 020 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 233,209 233,209 021 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................... 166,067 166,067 022 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 222,416 222,416 023 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................. 172,352 172,352 024 1160401BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 28,739 28,739 

SUBTOTAL, APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................................................ 1,703,881 0 1,703,881 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT (ATD) 

025 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................... 25,612 25,612 

026 0603121D8Z SO/LIC ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 26,324 26,324 027 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ............................................................................. 77,144 –11,300 65,844 

Reduction due to duplication of effort ......................................................................................... [–11,300 ] 

028 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION INITIATIVES—PROLIFERATION PREVENTION AND DEFEAT ........................ 275,022 275,022 029 0603175C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................... 79,975 79,975 030 0603200D8Z JOINT ADVANCED CONCEPTS .............................................................................................................. 0 0 031 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................ 20,032 20,032 032 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)—THEATER CAPABILITY .......................... 3,892 3,892 033 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM—MDA TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 36,685 36,685 034 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................... 174,316 174,316 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
391 

035 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................... 159,704 159,704 036 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................... 234,280 234,280 037 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 6,983 6,983 038 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS .......................................................................... 158,263 158,263 039 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES .................................................................................. 25,393 25,393 040 0603663D8Z DATA TO DECISIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................... 13,754 13,754 041 0603665D8Z BIOMETRICS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 0 0 042 0603668D8Z CYBER SECURITY ADVANCED RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 19,935 19,935 043 0603670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB) ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT .............. 8,235 8,235 044 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ....................................... 21,966 30,000 51,966 

Industrial Base Innovation Fund ................................................................................................... [30,000 ] 

045 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... 24,662 24,662 046 0603711D8Z JOINT ROBOTICS PROGRAM/AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 0 0 047 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS .............................................................. 24,605 24,605 048 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................... 30,678 30,678 049 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM .......................................................................... 65,282 65,282 050 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT ................................................... 72,234 –3,000 69,234 

DMEA upgrade reduction ............................................................................................................... [–3,000 ] 

051 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... 8,403 8,403 052 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES ......................................................................................... 111,008 111,008 053 0603755D8Z HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ......................................................... 0 0 054 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS .................................................................. 237,859 237,859 055 0603765E CLASSIFIED DARPA PROGRAMS .......................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 056 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................... 236,883 236,883 057 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 299,438 299,438 058 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................... 12,195 12,195 059 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE .................................................................................................. 30,036 30,036 060 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL PROJECTS ................................................................................................ 107,002 107,002 061 0603828D8Z JOINT EXPERIMENTATION .................................................................................................................... 0 0 062 0603828J JOINT EXPERIMENTATION .................................................................................................................... 21,230 21,230 063 0603832D8Z DOD MODELING AND SIMULATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE ................................................................. 47,433 47,433 064 0603901C DIRECTED ENERGY RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 46,944 46,944 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
392 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

065 0603902C NEXT GENERATION AEGIS MISSILE ..................................................................................................... 224,077 224,077 066 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................. 92,602 92,602 067 0603942D8Z TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .................................................................................................................... 0 0 068 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT ........................................................................... 26,244 26,244 069 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................................. 53,946 53,946 070 1160402BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 45,317 45,317 071 1160422BB AVIATION ENGINEERING ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 861 861 072 1160472BB SOF INFORMATION AND BROADCAST SYSTEMS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................ 4,959 4,959 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT (ATD) .............................................................. 3,194,413 15,700 3,210,113 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ................................................................. 3,194,413 15,700 3,210,113 

073 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P ............................ 33,234 33,234 074 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH ................................................................................................................................. 21,023 21,023 075 0603600D8Z WALKOFF ............................................................................................................................................. 94,624 94,624 076 0603709D8Z JOINT ROBOTICS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................ 0 0 077 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSOR APPLICATIONS PROGRAM .................................................................................. 16,958 2,000 18,958 

Reverse cuts to testing ................................................................................................................. [2,000 ] 

078 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM .................................................. 75,941 75,941 

079 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT ............................................................ 316,929 316,929 080 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT ........................................................ 903,172 903,172 081 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—DEM/VAL ........................................................... 179,023 179,023 082 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS ............................................................................................. 347,012 347,012 083 0603888C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST & TARGETS ................................................................................. 0 0 084 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................... 362,711 362,711 085 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS—MDA ............................................................................................................... 272,387 272,387 086 0603892C AEGIS BMD ......................................................................................................................................... 992,407 992,407 087 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................... 51,313 51,313 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
393 

088 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS ................................................................ 6,912 6,912 089 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT & COMMUNICATION. 366,552 366,552 

090 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT ............................................................. 55,550 55,550 091 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) .................................................. 63,043 63,043 

092 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH .......................................................................................................................... 11,371 11,371 093 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR (SBX) ..................................................................................................... 9,730 9,730 094 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS .................................................................................................... 99,836 310,000 409,836 

Arrow Weapon System improvements ........................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

Arrow–3 interceptor ....................................................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

David’s Sling short-range BMD .................................................................................................... [60,000 ] 

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense ......................................................................................... [210,000 ] 

095 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST .................................................................................................... 454,400 454,400 096 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TARGETS .............................................................................................. 435,747 435,747 097 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING .................................................................................................................. 13,231 13,231 098 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE .......................................................................................................................... 11,398 11,398 099 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CORROSION PROGRAM ........................................................................... 3,283 20,800 24,083 

Increase for requirements shortfall .............................................................................................. [20,800 ] 

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 5,131 102 0604775D8Z DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 0 200,000 200,000 

Rapid Innovation Program ............................................................................................................ [200,000 ] 

103 0604787D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION COMMAND (JSIC) ............................................................................... 0 0 104 0604787J JOINT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ............................................................................................................ 3,273 3,273 105 0604828D8Z JOINT FIRES INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY TEAM ................................................................ 0 0 106 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 .................................................................................. 297,375 297,375 110 0604884C AIRBORNE INFRARED (ABIR) .............................................................................................................. 0 0 111 0604886C ADVANCED REMOTE SENSOR TECHNOLOGY (ARST) .......................................................................... 58,742 58,742 112 0605017D8Z REDUCTION OF TOTAL OWNERSHIP COST .......................................................................................... 0 0 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
394 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

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

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................... 6,282,166 532,800 6,814,966 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION (SDD) 

114 0604051D8Z DEFENSE ACQUISITION CHALLENGE PROGRAM (DACP) ..................................................................... 0 0 

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 .................................................................. 311,071 311,071 118 0604709D8Z JOINT ROBOTICS PROGRAM—EMD .................................................................................................... 0 0 119 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 12,699 123 0605018BTA DEFENSE INTEGRATED MILITARY HUMAN RESOURCES SYSTEM (DIMHRS) ....................................... 0 0 124 0605020BTA BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION AGENCY R&D ACTIVITIES .................................................................... 0 0 125 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 25,269 130 0605140D8Z TRUSTED FOUNDRY ............................................................................................................................ 0 0 131 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 3,556 134 0807708D8Z WOUNDED ILL AND INJURED SENIOR OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (WII-SOC) STAFF OFFICE ................. 0 0 

SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION (SDD) .................................................... 694,287 0 694,287 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
395 

RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

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

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 55,508 145 0605128D8Z CLASSIFIED PROGRAM USD(P) ........................................................................................................... 0 0 146 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 92,849 153 0605502BR SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 0 0 154 0605502C SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH—MDA ............................................................................. 0 0 155 0605502D8W SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 0 0 156 0605502D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 0 0 157 0605502E SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 0 0 158 0605502S SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 0 0 159 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER (S 1,857 1,857 160 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 12,056 12,056 161 0605799D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES .................................................................................................................... 0 0 162 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 5,000 20,110 

DT&E increase ............................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
396 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

165 0605897E DARPA AGENCY RELOCATION ............................................................................................................. 0 0 166 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................... 69,767 69,767 167 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................................. 4,454 4,454 168 0606301D8Z AVIATION SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................................................................... 0 0 169 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY INITIATIVE (DOSI) ......................................................................... 2,637 2,637 170 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 0 0 173 0303166D8Z SUPPORT TO INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) CAPABILITIES ............................................................. 0 0 174 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) CAPABILITIES ............................................................. 8,238 8,238 175 0303169D8Z INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RAPID ACQUISITION .............................................................................. 0 0 176 0305103E CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE .............................................................................................................. 1,801 1,801 177 0305193D8Z INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) ........................................................... 16,041 16,041 179 0305400D8Z WARFIGHTING AND INTELLIGENCE-RELATED SUPPORT ...................................................................... 0 0 180 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT AND TRAINING TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2) ................................... 77,475 77,475 181 0901585C PENTAGON RESERVATION ................................................................................................................... 0 0 182 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ—MDA ................................................................................................................... 34,855 34,855 183 0901598D8W MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS WHS .................................................................................................. 104 104 184 0909999D8Z FINANCING FOR CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS ...................................................................... 0 0 

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

SUBTOTAL, RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 887,928 5,000 892,928 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 14,745 189 0607828D8Z JOINT INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ..................................................................................... 0 0 190 0607828J JOINT INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ..................................................................................... 5,013 5,013 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
397 

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 ................................................................................... 191,452 191,452 209 0303140K INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................... 0 0 210 0303149J C4I FOR THE WARRIOR ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 211 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 36,575 36,575 212 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 17,058 220 0305103D8Z CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE .............................................................................................................. 0 0 222 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE .............................................................................................................. 4,189 4,189 223 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 

USSOCOM UFR ............................................................................................................................... [600 ] 

235 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 3,247 3,247 237 0305219BB MQ–1 PREDATOR A UAV .................................................................................................................... 1,355 1,355 239 0305231BB MQ–8 UAV .......................................................................................................................................... 0 0 240 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM ................................................................ 2,303 2,303 241 0305600D8Z INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURES ................................................ 1,478 1,478 249 0708011S INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS .............................................................................................................. 27,044 27,044 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
398 

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

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

250 0708012S LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 4,711 4,711 251 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ—OJCS ................................................................................................................... 4,100 4,100 252 1001018D8Z NATO AGS ........................................................................................................................................... 0 0 253 1105219BB MQ–9 UAV .......................................................................................................................................... 3,002 3,002 254 1105232BB RQ–11 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 0 0 255 1105233BB RQ–7 UAV .......................................................................................................................................... 0 0 256 1160279BB SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH/SMALL BUS TECH TRANSFER PILOT PROG ..................... 0 0 257 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 1,515 271 1160482BB SOF ROTARY WING AVIATION ............................................................................................................. 24,430 24,430 272 1160483BB SOF UNDERWATER SYSTEMS .............................................................................................................. 26,405 8,000 34,405 

Transfer from PDW Line 64 at USSOCOM request ....................................................................... [8,000 ] 

273 1160484BB SOF SURFACE CRAFT ......................................................................................................................... 8,573 8,573 

274 1160488BB SOF MILITARY INFORMATION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ........................................................................ 0 0 275 1160489BB SOF GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 7,620 7,620 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
399 

276 1160490BB SOF OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ........................................................................... 16,386 16,386 

276A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 3,754,516 3,754,516 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 4,667,738 8,600 4,676,338 UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................. –100,000 –100,000 

DARPA undistributed reduction ..................................................................................................... [–75,000 ] DARPA classified programs reduction .......................................................................................... [–25,000 ] 

TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ..................................................................... 17,982,161 462,100 18,444,261 OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

001 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................ 72,501 4,000 76,501 

NCR transition ............................................................................................................................... [4,000 ] 

002 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND EVALUATION ...................................................................................................... 49,201 49,201 003 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES ................................................................................ 63,566 63,566 

TOTAL, OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE ................................................................................. 185,268 4,000 189,268 

TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL ............................................................................. 69,407,767 –121,549 69,286,218 

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 Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

060 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY ............................................................................................... 19,860 19,860 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ................................................. 19,860 0 19,860 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
400 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................................................................... 19,860 0 19,860 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

056 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 4,600 4,600 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ................................................. 4,600 0 4,600 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

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

SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ..................................................................... 2,173 0 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 0 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 0 48,146 

TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY .................................................................... 60,119 0 60,119 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

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

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 53,150 0 53,150 

TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ........................................................................ 53,150 0 53,150 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
401 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW 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 0 112,387 

TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ....................................................................... 112,387 0 112,387 TOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL ............................................................................... 245,516 0 245,516 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
402 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
403 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,223,087 1,223,087 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ......................................................................................................................................... 80,574 80,574 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ............................................................................................................................................. 723,039 723,039 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................... 706,974 706,974 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................. 1,226,650 1,226,650 060 AVIATION ASSETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,319,832 1,319,832 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 3,447,174 3,447,174 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ................................................................................................................................ 454,774 454,774 090 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 3,041,074 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ’S ............................................................................................................................ 410,171 410,171 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 177,819 177,819 140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... 0 0 160 RESET ................................................................................................................................................................................ 0 0 170 COMBATANT COMMANDERS ANCILLARY MISSIONS ........................................................................................................... 461,333 461,333 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 22,436,871 0 22,436,871 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
404 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MOBILIZATION 

180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY ........................................................................................................................................................ 405,496 405,496 190 ARMY PREPOSITIONING STOCKS ....................................................................................................................................... 195,349 195,349 

200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ............................................................................................................................................. 6,379 6,379 

SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION ................................................................................................................................................ 607,224 0 607,224 

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 0 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
405 

380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 478,707 478,707 390 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 556,307 –17,200 539,107 

GFEBS realignment per Army request ......................................................................................................................... [–17,200 ] 

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 –8,100 1,145,456 

Decrease for ahead of need request ........................................................................................................................... [–8,100 ] 

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 –25,300 8,480,587 

UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................ –120,000 –120,000 

Unobligated balances ................................................................................................................................................... [–120,000 ] 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY .................................................................................................................... 36,608,592 –145,300 36,463,292 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 4,918,144 4,918,144 

020 FLEET AIR TRAINING ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,886,825 1,886,825 030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES ................................................................................................... 44,032 44,032 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................... 101,565 101,565 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................... 374,827 374,827 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 960,802 960,802 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ......................................................................................................................... 37,545 37,545 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS .......................................................................................................................................................... 328,805 328,805 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
406 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 4,686,535 4,686,535 100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ......................................................................................................................... 769,204 769,204 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 5,089,981 5,089,981 120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 1,315,366 1,315,366 130 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 2,101,279 300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 4,822,093 4,822,093 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 33,758,297 0 33,758,297 MOBILIZATION 

310 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE .................................................................................................................................. 334,659 334,659 

320 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 6,562 6,562 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
407 

330 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 1,066,329 1,066,329 340 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 0 1,517,648 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 ........................................................................................................................................ 241,329 241,329 450 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 0 1,716,430 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

480 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 797,177 797,177 

490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 12,872 12,872 500 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................... 120,181 120,181 510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................... 235,753 235,753 520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................... 263,060 263,060 530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 363,213 363,213 540 MEDICAL ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 182,343 182,343 560 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................................ 0 0 570 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 282,464 282,464 580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 1,092,123 1,092,123 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
408 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

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 4,984 690 CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 0 0 700 JUDGEMENT FUND ............................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 710 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 537,079 537,079 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 4,614,568 0 4,614,568 UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................ –23,000 –23,000 

Unobligated balances ................................................................................................................................................... [–23,000 ] 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY .................................................................................................................... 41,606,943 –23,000 41,583,943 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 788,055 788,055 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ............................................................................................................................................................... 762,614 762,614 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 168,447 168,447 040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING .............................................................................................................................................. 100,374 100,374 050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................ 825,039 825,039 060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 2,188,883 2,188,883 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 4,833,412 0 4,833,412 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
409 

070 RECRUIT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................ 18,251 18,251 080 OFFICER ACQUISITION ....................................................................................................................................................... 869 869 090 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 ........................................................................................................................................ 168,609 168,609 130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................... 56,865 56,865 140 JUNIOR ROTC .................................................................................................................................................................... 19,912 19,912 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ........................................................................................................................... 680,314 0 680,314 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 39,962 39,962 

170 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 83,404 83,404 180 CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENT ................................................................................................................................. 0 0 190 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 346,071 346,071 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 469,437 0 469,437 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS .................................................................................................... 5,983,163 0 5,983,163 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 2,973,141 2,973,141 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................... 1,611,032 1,611,032 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ........................................................................................................ 1,472,806 1,472,806 040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 5,545,470 5,545,470 050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 1,353,987 1,353,987 060 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,595,032 2,595,032 070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING ................................................................................................................................... 957,040 957,040 080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................................. 916,200 916,200 090 JCS EXERCISES ................................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 100 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................ 733,716 733,716 110 LAUNCH FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................................................... 314,490 314,490 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
410 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

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 0 20,047,084 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 0 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 ........................................................................................................................................... 482,634 482,634 260 FLIGHT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................... 750,609 750,609 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ...................................................................................................................... 235,114 235,114 280 TRAINING SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 101,231 101,231 290 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 233,330 233,330 300 JUDGEMENT FUND ............................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 310 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 130,217 130,217 320 EXAMINING ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2,738 2,738 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
411 

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 0 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 23,904 450 JUDGEMENT FUND REIMBURSEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 0 0 470 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................. 81,307 81,307 480 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 1,239,040 1,239,040 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 7,208,311 0 7,208,311 UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................ –32,000 –32,000 

Unobligated balances ................................................................................................................................................... [–32,000 ] 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................... 35,435,360 –32,000 35,403,360 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF .................................................................................................................................................... 485,708 485,708 

020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND ..................................................................................................................................... 0 5,107,501 5,107,501 

Transfer from Line 025 ................................................................................................................................................ [5,091,001 ] USSOCOM UFR .............................................................................................................................................................. [16,500 ] 

025 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 5,091,001 –5,091,001 0 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
412 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Transfer to Line 020 .................................................................................................................................................... [–5,091,001 ] 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 5,576,709 16,500 5,593,209 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

030 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY .................................................................................................................................. 147,210 147,210 

040 NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY ....................................................................................................................................... 84,999 84,999 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ........................................................................................................................... 232,209 0 232,209 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

050 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................................................. 161,294 161,294 070 DEFENSE BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION AGENCY .............................................................................................................. 0 0 

080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ................................................................................................................................ 573,973 573,973 090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY ................................................................................................................... 1,293,196 1,293,196 100 DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE ............................................................................................................... 17,513 17,513 110 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY .......................................................................................................................... 676,186 676,186 120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ...................................................................................................................... 1,346,847 1,346,847 140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ................................................................................................................................. 35,137 35,137 150 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................... 431,893 431,893 160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................................................. 224,013 224,013 170 DEFENSE POW/MIA OFFICE ............................................................................................................................................... 21,964 21,964 180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY .................................................................................................................... 557,917 –17,600 540,317 

Program decrease—Defense Security Assessment ..................................................................................................... [–2,600 ] Program decrease—Global Train and Equip .............................................................................................................. [–15,000 ] 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
413 

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 –139,400 114,037 

Decrease for ahead of need request ........................................................................................................................... [–139,400 ] 

260 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ........................................................................................................................ 2,095,362 2,095,362 270 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... 521,297 521,297 280 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 14,933,801 –775,044 14,158,757 

Transfer to Line 190 .................................................................................................................................................... [–506,662 ] Transfer to Line 210 .................................................................................................................................................... [–443,382 ] Commercial imagery service level agreement ............................................................................................................. [125,000 ] Additional ISR Support to Operation Observant Compass .......................................................................................... [50,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 26,184,095 –157,000 26,202,095 UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................ 5,000 5,000 

Unobligated balances ................................................................................................................................................... [–25,000 ] Impact aid for schools with military dependent students .......................................................................................... [25,000 ] Impact aid for children with severe disabilities ......................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................................................... 31,993,013 39,500 32,032,513 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,391 1,391 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ......................................................................................................................................... 20,889 20,889 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ............................................................................................................................................. 592,724 592,724 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................... 114,983 114,983 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................. 633,091 633,091 060 AVIATION ASSETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 76,823 76,823 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 481,997 481,997 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ................................................................................................................................ 70,118 70,118 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
414 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................ 141,205 141,205 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 561,878 561,878 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 287,399 287,399 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ’S ............................................................................................................................ 52,431 52,431 130 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 3,034,929 0 3,034,929 

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 0 127,079 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ............................................................................................................ 3,162,008 0 3,162,008 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 616,776 616,776 

020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................... 15,076 15,076 030 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................... 1,479 1,479 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 107,251 107,251 050 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ......................................................................................................................... 355 355 060 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 82,186 82,186 070 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ......................................................................................................................... 589 589 080 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 48,593 48,593 090 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 15,274 15,274 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
415 

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 0 1,224,046 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 3,117 3,117 

160 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................... 14,337 14,337 170 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 2,392 2,392 180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 3,090 3,090 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 22,936 0 22,936 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES ............................................................................................................. 1,246,982 0 1,246,982 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 89,690 89,690 

020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 16,735 16,735 030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................ 37,913 37,913 040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 103,746 103,746 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 248,084 0 248,084 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 873 873 

060 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 14,330 14,330 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 8,998 8,998 080 CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENT ................................................................................................................................. 0 0 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 24,201 0 24,201 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ........................................................................................................ 272,285 0 272,285 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
416 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 2,089,326 2,089,326 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 112,992 112,992 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 406,101 406,101 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 71,564 71,564 050 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 364,862 364,862 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 3,044,845 0 3,044,845 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 78,824 78,824 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 16,020 16,020 

080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC) .............................................................................................................. 19,496 19,496 090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP) ...................................................................................................................... 6,489 6,489 100 AUDIOVISUAL ..................................................................................................................................................................... 808 808 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 121,637 0 121,637 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ......................................................................................................... 3,166,482 0 3,166,482 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS ............................................................................................................................................................. 680,206 680,206 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ......................................................................................................................................... 186,408 186,408 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ............................................................................................................................................. 865,628 865,628 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................... 112,651 112,651 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................. 36,091 36,091 060 AVIATION ASSETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 907,011 907,011 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 751,606 751,606 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ................................................................................................................................ 60,043 60,043 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
417 

090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................ 411,940 411,940 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 995,423 995,423 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 688,189 688,189 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ’S ............................................................................................................................ 953,716 953,716 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 6,648,912 0 6,648,912 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 0 459,700 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG .................................................................................................................... 7,108,612 0 7,108,612 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3,559,824 3,559,824 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 721,225 721,225 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 774,875 774,875 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 270,709 270,709 050 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 624,443 624,443 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 5,951,076 0 5,951,076 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 32,358 32,358 

070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................................ 32,021 32,021 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 64,379 0 64,379 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG ...................................................................................................................... 6,015,455 0 6,015,455 MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
418 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE .......................................................................................... 13,516 13,516 040 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD ................................................................................................................................................. 274,198 274,198 020 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID ..................................................................................................... 108,759 108,759 030 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 519,111 519,111 050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ............................................................................................................................ 335,921 335,921 060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY ............................................................................................................................. 310,594 310,594 070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE .................................................................................................................... 529,263 529,263 080 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE ....................................................................................................................... 11,133 11,133 090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES ................................................................................................. 237,543 237,543 

TOTAL, MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 2,340,038 0 2,340,038 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................... 174,938,933 –160,800 174,778,133 

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 Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................... 2,758,162 2,758,162 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................. 991,396 991,396 

060 AVIATION ASSETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 40,300 40,300 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 1,755,445 1,755,445 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
419 

080 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 12,524,137 150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... 400,000 –200,000 200,000 

Program decrease ........................................................................................................................................................ [–200,000 ] 

160 RESET ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3,687,973 3,687,973 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 23,107,822 –200,000 22,907,822 

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 –40,000 97,277 

Transfer to OPA OCO Line 061 at SOUTHCOM request ............................................................................................... [–40,000 ] 

430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................ 72,293 72,293 490 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 1,828,717 1,828,717 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................................... 5,483,619 –40,000 5,443,619 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY .................................................................................................................... 28,591,441 –240,000 28,351,441 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 937,098 937,098 

030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES ................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................... 15,794 15,794 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................... 19,013 19,013 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 201,912 201,912 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ......................................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS .......................................................................................................................................................... 44,150 44,150 090 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
420 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

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 0 5,329,365 MOBILIZATION 

340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 31,395 31,395 

360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 254,461 254,461 

SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION ................................................................................................................................................ 285,856 0 285,856 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING ........................................................................................................................................... 50,903 50,903 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ........................................................................................................................... 50,903 0 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
421 

620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................ 1,425 1,425 710 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 14,556 14,556 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 214,271 0 214,271 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY .................................................................................................................... 5,880,395 0 5,880,395 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,921,258 1,921,258 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ............................................................................................................................................................... 1,094,028 1,094,028 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 222,824 222,824 060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 88,690 88,690 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 3,326,800 0 3,326,800 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

110 TRAINING SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 215,212 215,212 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ........................................................................................................................... 215,212 0 215,212 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 512,627 512,627 

190 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 11,701 11,701 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 524,328 0 524,328 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS .................................................................................................... 4,066,340 0 4,066,340 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 1,494,144 1,494,144 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................... 809,531 809,531 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ........................................................................................................ 13,095 13,095 040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,403,238 1,403,238 050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 155,954 155,954 060 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 342,226 342,226 070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING ................................................................................................................................... 15,108 15,108 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
422 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

080 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 0 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 0 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 0 13,130 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

360 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 100,429 100,429 

390 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 47,200 47,200 400 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 7,242 7,242 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
423 

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 0 841,764 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................... 9,241,613 0 9,241,613 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF .................................................................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 

020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND ..................................................................................................................................... 2,503,060 2,503,060 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 2,505,060 0 2,505,060 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ................................................................................................................................ 30,674 30,674 

090 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 2,200,000 220 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ............................................................................................................. 139,830 139,830 260 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ........................................................................................................................ 87,805 87,805 280 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................................... 2,522,003 2,522,003 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 5,319,519 0 5,319,519 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................................................... 7,824,579 0 7,824,579 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ............................................................................................................................................. 78,600 78,600 

050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................. 20,811 20,811 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 20,726 20,726 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
424 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 34,400 34,400 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 154,537 0 154,537 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ............................................................................................................ 154,537 0 154,537 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 24,834 24,834 

020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................... 300 300 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 13,364 13,364 060 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 8,213 8,213 080 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................... 929 929 100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 8,244 8,244 140 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 40 40 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 55,924 0 55,924 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES ............................................................................................................. 55,924 0 55,924 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 22,657 22,657 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 2,820 2,820 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 25,477 0 25,477 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ........................................................................................................ 25,477 0 25,477 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
425 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................... 7,600 7,600 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 106,768 106,768 050 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 6,250 6,250 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 120,618 0 120,618 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ......................................................................................................... 120,618 0 120,618 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS ............................................................................................................................................................. 38,485 38,485 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ......................................................................................................................................... 1,959 1,959 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ............................................................................................................................................. 20,076 20,076 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................... 2,028 2,028 060 AVIATION ASSETS .............................................................................................................................................................. 183,811 183,811 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................... 43,780 43,780 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 70,237 70,237 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ’S ............................................................................................................................ 20,072 20,072 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 380,448 0 380,448 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 2,000 0 2,000 TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG .................................................................................................................... 382,448 0 382,448 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 19,975 19,975 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ....................................................................................................................................... 19,975 0 19,975 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG ...................................................................................................................... 19,975 0 19,975 

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND MINISTRY OF DEFENSE 

010 SUSTAINMENT .................................................................................................................................................................... 2,523,825 2,523,825 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
426 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

020 INFRASTRUCTURE .............................................................................................................................................................. 190,000 190,000 030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................................. 241,521 241,521 040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 758,380 758,380 

SUBTOTAL, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE .................................................................................................................................. 3,713,726 0 3,713,726 

MINISTRY OF INTERIOR 

050 SUSTAINMENT .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,305,950 1,305,950 

060 INFRASTRUCTURE .............................................................................................................................................................. 50,000 50,000 070 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................................. 84,859 84,859 080 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 569,868 569,868 

SUBTOTAL, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR ................................................................................................................................. 2,010,677 0 2,010,677 

RELATED ACTIVITIES 

090 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 0 24,764 

TOTAL, AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND .............................................................................................................. 5,749,167 0 5,749,167 

AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 

010 POWER ............................................................................................................................................................................... 400,000 –50,000 350,000 

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

TOTAL, AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND ............................................................................................................... 400,000 –50,000 350,000 

TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................... 62,512,514 –290,000 62,222,514 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(427) 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
428 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL. 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL ............................................................................................................................................................. 135,111,799 6,000 135,117,799 

BAH for Full-time Guard Transition to Active Duty ..................................................................................................... [6,000 ] 

TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................ 135,111,799 6,000 135,117,799 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
429 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL ............................................................................................................................................................. 14,060,094 14,060,094 TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................ 14,060,094 0 14,060,094 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(431) 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
432 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 

010 PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS .......................................................................................................................... 60,037 60,037 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .......................................................................................................................... 60,037 0 60,037 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE 

010 C–17 CLS ENGINE REPAIR ............................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

020 TRANSPORTATION FALLEN HEROES ................................................................................................................................... 0 0 040 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS (MEDICAL/DENTAL) ................................................................................................................ 45,452 45,452 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................. 45,452 0 45,452 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE 

010 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA) ................................................................................................................................. 39,135 39,135 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE .......................................................................................................... 39,135 0 39,135 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA 

010 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA ........................................................................................................................................ 1,371,560 1,371,560 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA .......................................................................................................................... 1,371,560 0 1,371,560 NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND 

010 T–AKE ................................................................................................................................................................................ 0 0 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
433 

020 MPF MLP ........................................................................................................................................................................... 38,000 38,000 030 POST DELIVERY AND OUTFITTING ..................................................................................................................................... 39,386 39,386 040 NATIONAL DEF SEALIFT VESSEL ........................................................................................................................................ 0 0 050 LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................. 128,819 128,819 060 DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 26,598 26,598 070 TAH MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................................ 29,199 29,199 080 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 42,811 42,811 090 READY RESERVE FORCE ................................................................................................................................................... 303,323 303,323 100 MARAD SHIP FINANCING GUARANTEE PROGRAM .............................................................................................................. 0 0 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND ...................................................................................................................... 608,136 0 608,136 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM DHP, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 

010 IN-HOUSE CARE ................................................................................................................................................................ 8,625,507 8,625,507 

020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ..................................................................................................................................................... 16,148,263 16,148,263 030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................... 2,309,185 2,309,185 040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 1,465,328 1,465,328 050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 332,121 332,121 060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................... 722,081 722,081 070 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 1,746,794 1,746,794 

070A UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................................................................. 452,000 452,000 

Restore DOD assumed Savings for TRICARE Proposals .............................................................................................. [452,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, DHP, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................... 31,349,279 452,000 31,801,279 DHP, RDT&E 

080 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................................. 672,977 672,977 

SUBTOTAL, DHP, RDT&E ................................................................................................................................................... 672,977 0 672,977 

DHP, PROCUREMENT 

090 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................................. 506,462 506,462 

SUBTOTAL, DHP, PROCUREMENT 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
434 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................ 32,528,718 452,000 32,980,718 CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION 

001 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................ 635,843 635,843 

002 RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................................... 647,351 647,351 003 PROCUREMENT .................................................................................................................................................................. 18,592 18,592 

TOTAL, CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1,301,786 0 1,301,786 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF 

010 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ........................................................................................................ 889,545 –25,900 863,645 

Transfer to Demand Reduction Program ..................................................................................................................... [–25,900 ] 

020 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 109,818 25,900 135,718 

Expanded drug testing ................................................................................................................................................. [25,900 ] 

TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF .......................................................................................... 999,363 0 999,363 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

010 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................ 272,821 59,100 331,921 

DoD IG growth plan ..................................................................................................................................................... [59,100 ] 

020 RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 030 PROCUREMENT .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,000 1,000 

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ................................................................................................................. 273,821 59,100 332,921 

TOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 37,228,008 511,100 37,739,108 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
435 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 

010 PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS .......................................................................................................................... 42,600 42,600 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .......................................................................................................................... 42,600 0 42,600 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE 

010 C–17 CLS ENGINE REPAIR ............................................................................................................................................... 230,400 230,400 

020 TRANSPORTATION FALLEN HEROES ................................................................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................. 240,400 0 240,400 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE 

010 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA) ................................................................................................................................. 220,364 220,364 

TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE .......................................................................................................... 220,364 0 220,364 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM DHP, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 

010 IN-HOUSE CARE ................................................................................................................................................................ 483,326 483,326 020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ..................................................................................................................................................... 376,982 376,982 030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................... 111,675 111,675 

040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 4,773 4,773 050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 660 660 060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................... 15,370 15,370 070 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 1,112 1,112 

SUBTOTAL, DHP, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................ 993,898 0 993,898 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF 

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


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
436 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF .......................................................................................... 469,025 0 469,025 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

010 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................ 10,766 10,766 

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ................................................................................................................. 10,766 0 10,766 TOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 1,977,053 0 1,977,053 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(437) 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
438 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION. 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

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

ARMY Milcon ARMY ALASKA FORT WAINWRIGHT Modified Record Fire Range ........................................ 10,400 10,400 ARMY ALASKA Joint Base ElmendorfRichardson Modified Record Fire Range ........................................ 7,900 7,900 ARMY CALIFORNIA CONCORD Lightning Protection System ........................................ 5,800 5,800 ARMY CALIFORNIA CONCORD Engineering/Housing Maintenance Shop ..................... 3,100 3,100 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 Modified Record Fire Range ........................................ 4,000 4,000 ARMY GEORGIA FORT GORDON Multipurpose Machine Gun Range .............................. 7,100 7,100 ARMY GEORGIA FORT GORDON Ground Source Heat Transfer System .......................... 12,200 12,200 ARMY GEORGIA FORT STEWART, GEORGIA Digital Multipurpose Training Range .......................... 22,000 22,000 ARMY GEORGIA FORT STEWART, GEORGIA Automated Combat Pistol Qual Crse ........................... 3,650 3,650 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 ....................................................................... 41,000 41,000 ARMY HAWAII SCHOFIELD BARRACKS Barracks ....................................................................... 55,000 55,000 ARMY HAWAII Wheeler Army Air Field Combat Aviation Brigade Barracks ............................. 85,000 85,000 ARMY KANSAS FORT RILEY, KANSAS Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Complex .............................. 12,200 12,200 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
439 

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 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 MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD Battalion Complex Facilities ........................................ 26,000 26,000 ARMY NEW JERSEY PICATINNY ARSENAL Ballistic Evaluation Center .......................................... 10,200 10,200 ARMY NEW JERSEY Joint Base McGuire-DixLakehurst Flight Equipment Complex ........................................... 47,000 47,000 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 0 ARMY NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG Aerial Gunnery Range .................................................. 42,000 42,000 ARMY NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG Infrastructure ............................................................... 30,000 –30,000 0 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 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 0 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 YAKIMA Convoy Live Fire Range ............................................... 5,100 5,100 ARMY WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis-McChord Battalion Complex ........................................................ 73,000 73,000


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
440 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

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

ARMY WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis-McChord Waste Water Treatment Plant ...................................... 91,000 91,000 ARMY ITALY CAMP EDERLE Barracks ....................................................................... 36,000 36,000 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 KOREA CAMP HUMPHREYS Battalion Headquarters Complex ................................. 45,000 45,000 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Minor Construction FY 13 ............................................ 25,000 25,000 

ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Host Nation Support FY 13 .......................................... 34,000 34,000 

ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Planning and Design FY13 .......................................... 65,173 –19,000 46,173 

Milcon, A—SUBTOTAL .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,923,323 –325,000 1,598,323 

NAVY Milcon NAVY ARIZONA YUMA Security Operations Complex ....................................... 13,300 13,300 NAVY ARIZONA YUMA Combat Aircraft Loading Apron ................................... 15,985 15,985 NAVY CALIFORNIA CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA Comm. Information Systems Ops Complex ................. 78,897 78,897 NAVY CALIFORNIA CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA San Jacinto Road Extension ........................................ 5,074 5,074 NAVY CALIFORNIA CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA MV22 Aviation Simulator Building .............................. 4,139 4,139 NAVY CALIFORNIA VENTURA COUNTY BAMS Maintenance Training Facility ........................... 14,843 –2,053 12,790 NAVY CALIFORNIA MIRAMAR Hangar 5 Renovations & Addition ............................... 27,897 27,897 NAVY CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO Entry Control Point (Gate Five) .................................... 11,752 11,752 NAVY CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO LCS Training Facility .................................................... 59,436 59,436 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
441 

NAVY CALIFORNIA SEAL BEACH Strategic Systems Weapons Eval. Test Lab ................ 30,594 30,594 NAVY CALIFORNIA TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA Land Expansion Phase 2 ............................................. 47,270 47,270 NAVY CALIFORNIA CORONADO Bachelor Quarters ........................................................ 76,063 76,063 NAVY CALIFORNIA CORONADO H–60S Simulator Training Facility .............................. 2,478 2,478 NAVY FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE BAMS Mission Control Complex ................................... 21,980 21,980 NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY MV–22 Hangar and Infrastructure .............................. 82,630 82,630 NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY Aircraft Staging Area ................................................... 14,680 14,680 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 

Staff NCO Academy Facilities ...................................... 28,986 28,986 

NAVY NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Base Access and Road—Phase 3 .............................. 40,904 40,904 

NAVY NORTH CAROLINA CHERRY POINT MARINE 

CORPS AIR STATION 

Marine Air Support Squadron Compound .................... 34,310 34,310 

NAVY NORTH CAROLINA CHERRY POINT MARINE 

CORPS AIR STATION 

Armory .......................................................................... 11,581 11,581 

NAVY NORTH CAROLINA NEW RIVER Personnel Administration Center ................................. 8,525 8,525 NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT Ground Support Equipment Shop ................................ 9,465 9,465 NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT Simulated LHD Flight Deck .......................................... 12,887 12,887 NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT Recycling/Hazardous Waste Facility ............................ 3,743 3,743 NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ...................................... 42,010 42,010 NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT Airfield Security Upgrades ........................................... 13,675 13,675 NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA PARRIS ISLAND Front Gate ATFP Improvements ................................... 10,135 10,135 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 The Basic School Student Quarters—Phase 7 ........... 31,012 31,012 NAVY VIRGINIA QUANTICO Infrastructure—Widen Russell Road ........................... 14,826 14,826 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
442 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

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

NAVY VIRGINIA QUANTICO Weapons Training Battalion Mess Hall ....................... 12,876 12,876 NAVY VIRGINIA YORKTOWN Regimental Headquarters ............................................ 11,015 11,015 NAVY VIRGINIA YORKTOWN Bachelor Enlisted Quarters .......................................... 18,422 18,422 NAVY VIRGINIA YORKTOWN Motor Transportation Facility ....................................... 6,188 6,188 NAVY VIRGINIA YORKTOWN Supply Warehouse Facility ........................................... 8,939 8,939 NAVY VIRGINIA YORKTOWN Armory .......................................................................... 4,259 4,259 NAVY WASHINGTON WHIDBEY ISLAND EA–18G Flight Simulator Facility ................................ 6,272 6,272 NAVY WASHINGTON KITSAP Explosives Handling Wharf #2 (INC) ........................... 280,041 –25,800 254,241 NAVY BAHRAIN ISLAND SW ASIA Transient Quarters ....................................................... 41,529 41,529 NAVY BAHRAIN ISLAND SW ASIA Combined Dining Facility ............................................. 9,819 9,819 NAVY DIEGO GARCIA DIEGO GARCIA Communications Infrastructure ................................... 1,691 1,691 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 0 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 ROMANIA Deveselu, Romania AEGIS Ashore Missile Defense Complex ...................... 45,205 45,205 NAVY SPAIN ROTA General Purpose Warehouse ........................................ 3,378 3,378 NAVY SPAIN ROTA High Explosive Magazine ............................................. 13,837 13,837 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS BAMS Operational Facilities ........................................ 34,048 34,048 NAVY DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI Containerized Living and Work Units .......................... 7,510 7,510 NAVY DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI Galley Addition and Warehouse ................................... 22,220 22,220 NAVY DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI Joint HQ/Joint Operations Center Facility .................... 42,730 42,730 NAVY DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI Fitness Center .............................................................. 26,960 26,960


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
443 

NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 16,535 16,535 

NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

MCON Design Funds .................................................... 102,619 102,619 

Milcon, N—SUBTOTAL .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,701,985 –53,757 1,648,228 

AF Milcon AF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK AFB C–130J Fuel Systems Maintenance Hangar ................ 26,000 26,000 AF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK AFB C–130J Flight Simulator Addition ............................... 4,178 4,178 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 AF GEORGIA MOODY AFB HC–130J Simulator Facility ......................................... 8,500 8,500 AF NEBRASKA OFFUTT AFB US STRATCOM Replacement Facility, Incr 2 ............... 161,000 –33,000 128,000 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 Hangar 45W/AMU ...................................... 7,250 7,250 AF UTAH HILL AFB F–35 Modular Storage Magazines ............................... 2,280 2,280 AF UTAH HILL AFB F–35 ADAL Building 118 for Flight Simulator ............ 4,000 4,000 AF GREENLAND THULE AB Dormitory (48 PN) ........................................................ 24,500 24,500 AF ITALY AVIANO AB F–16 Mission Training Center ..................................... 9,400 9,400 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Transient Contingency Dormitory—100 RM ................ 17,625 –17,625 0 

AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Transient Aircraft Hangars .......................................... 15,032 –15,032 0 

AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Sanitary Sewer Lift/Pump Station ............................... 2,000 2,000 

AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 18,200 18,200 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Planning and Design ................................................... 18,635 18,635 

Milcon, AF—SUBTOTAL ................................................................................................................................................................ 388,200 –65,657 322,543 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
444 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

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

DEF-WIDE 

Milcon 

DEFW BELGIUM BRUSSELS NATO Headquarters Facility ......................................... 26,969 26,969 DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Energy Conservation Investment Program ................... 150,000 150,000 

DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Contingency Construction ............................................ 10,000 10,000 

DFAS TEXAS RED RIVER ARMY DEPOT DFAS Facility ................................................................ 16,715 16,715 DISA ILLINOIS SCOTT AFB DISA Facility Upgrades ................................................ 84,111 84,111 DISA GERMANY STUTTGART-PATCH BARRACKS DISA Europe Facility Upgrades .................................... 2,413 2,413 DLA ARIZONA YUMA Truck Unload Facility ................................................... 1,300 1,300 DLA CALIFORNIA DEF FUEL SUPPORT 

POINT—SAN DIEGO 

Replace Fuel Pier ......................................................... 91,563 91,563 

DLA CALIFORNIA EDWARDS AIR FORCE 

BASE 

Replace Fuel Storage ................................................... 27,500 27,500 

DLA DELAWARE DOVER AFB Replace Truck Off-Load Facility .................................. 2,000 2,000 DLA FLORIDA HURLBURT FIELD Construct Fuel Storage Facility ................................... 16,000 16,000 DLA INDIANA GRISSOM ARB Replace Hydrant Fuel System ...................................... 26,800 26,800 DLA LOUISIANA BARKSDALE AFB Upgrade Pumphouse .................................................... 11,700 11,700 DLA NORTH CAROLINA SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB Replace Pipeline .......................................................... 1,850 1,850 DLA PENNSYLVANIA DEF DIST DEPOT NEW 

CUMBERLAND 

Replace Sewage Treatment Plant ................................ 6,300 6,300 

DLA PENNSYLVANIA DEF DIST DEPOT NEW 

CUMBERLAND 

Replace Communications Building .............................. 6,800 6,800 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
445 

DLA PENNSYLVANIA DEF DIST DEPOT NEW 

CUMBERLAND 

Replace Reservoir ........................................................ 4,300 4,300 

DLA GUAM ANDERSEN AFB Upgrade Fuel Pipeline .................................................. 67,500 –67,500 0 DLA GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA GUANTANAMO BAY Replace Truck Load Facility ......................................... 2,600 2,600 DLA GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA GUANTANAMO BAY Replace Fuel Pier ......................................................... 37,600 37,600DODEA KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY Replace Barkley Elementary School ............................. 41,767 41,767 DODEA GERMANY VOGELWEH Replace Vogelweh Elementary School ......................... 61,415 61,415 DODEA GERMANY WEISBADEN Weisbaden High School Addition ................................. 52,178 52,178 DODEA JAPAN CAMP ZAMA Renovate Zama High School ....................................... 13,273 13,273 DODEA JAPAN KADENA AB Replace Elementary School .......................................... 71,772 71,772 DODEA JAPAN KADENA AB Replace Stearley Heights Elementary School .............. 71,773 71,773 DODEA JAPAN ZUKERAN Replace Zukeran Elementary School ........................... 79,036 79,036 DODEA JAPAN SASEBO Replace Sasebo Elementary School ............................. 35,733 35,733 DODEA KOREA OSAN AFB Replace Osan Elementary School ................................ 42,692 42,692 DODEA UNITED KINGDOM RAF FELTWELL Feltwell Elementary School Addition ............................ 30,811 30,811 DODEA UNITED KINGDOM MENWITH HILL STATION Replace Menwith Hill Elementary/High School ............ 46,488 46,488 MDA NEW YORK FORT DRUM, NEW YORK IDT Complex ................................................................. 25,900 25,900 MDA ROMANIA Deveselu, Romania Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System Complex .......... 157,900 157,900 NSA COLORADO BUCKLEY AIR FORCE BASE Denver Power House .................................................... 30,000 30,000 NSA MARYLAND FORT MEADE NSAW Recapitalize Building #1/Site M Inc 1 .............. 25,000 25,000 NSA MARYLAND FORT MEADE High Performance Computing Center Inc 2 ................ 300,521 –75,000 225,521 NSA UTAH CAMP WILLIAMS IC CNCI Data Center 1 Inc 4 ...................................... 191,414 191,414 NSA UNITED KINGDOM MENWITH HILL STATION MHS Utilities and Roads ............................................. 3,795 3,795 SOCOM CALIFORNIA CORONADO SOF Indoor Dynamic Shooting Facility ......................... 31,170 31,170 SOCOM CALIFORNIA CORONADO SOF Close Quarters Combat/Dynamic Shoot Fac ........ 13,969 13,969 SOCOM CALIFORNIA CORONADO SOF Mobile Comm Detachment Support Facility ......... 10,120 10,120 SOCOM COLORADO FORT CARSON, COLORADO SOF Battalion Operations Complex .............................. 56,673 56,673 SOCOM FLORIDA EGLIN AFB SOF AVFID Ops and Maintenance Facilities ................ 41,695 41,695 SOCOM FLORIDA MACDILL AFB SOF Joint Special Ops University Fac (JSOU) .............. 34,409 34,409 SOCOM HAWAII Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam SOF SDVT–1 Waterfront Operations Facility ................ 24,289 24,289 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
446 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

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

SOCOM KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY SOF Landgraf Hangar Extension .................................. 3,559 3,559 SOCOM KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY SOF Ground Support Battalion .................................... 26,313 26,313 SOCOM NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB SOF AC–130J Combat Parking Apron .......................... 22,062 22,062 SOCOM NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH 

CAROLINA 

SOF Marine Battalion Company/Team Facilities ......... 53,399 53,399 

SOCOM NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH 

CAROLINA 

SOF Survival Evasion Resist. Escape Tng Fac ............ 5,465 5,465 

SOCOM NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF Support Addition ................................................... 3,875 3,875 SOCOM NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF Battalion Operations Facility ................................ 40,481 10,000 50,481 SOCOM NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF Civil Affairs Battalion Complex ............................ 31,373 10,000 41,373 SOCOM NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF Sustainment Brigade Complex ............................. 24,693 10,000 34,693 SOCOM VIRGINIA Joint Exp Base Little 

Creek—Story 

SOF Combat Services Support Facility—East ............. 11,132 11,132 

SOCOM WASHINGTON FORT LEWIS SOF Military Working Dog Kennel ................................ 3,967 3,967 SOCOM WASHINGTON FORT LEWIS SOF Battalion Operations Facility ................................ 46,553 46,553 SOCOM CONUS CLASSIFIED CLASSIFIED LOCATION SOF Parachute Training Facility .................................. 6,477 6,477 SOCOM UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF CV–22 Simulator Facility ..................................... 6,490 6,490 TMA CALIFORNIA TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA Medical Clinic Replacement ........................................ 27,400 27,400 TMA COLORADO PIKES PEAK High Altitude Medical Research Lab ........................... 3,600 3,600 TMA ILLINOIS GREAT LAKES Drug Laboratory Replacement ..................................... 28,700 28,700 TMA ILLINOIS SCOTT AFB Medical Logistics Warehouse ....................................... 2,600 2,600 TMA MARYLAND ANNAPOLIS Health Clinic Replacement .......................................... 66,500 66,500 TMA MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL Temporary Medical Facilities ....................................... 26,600 26,600 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
447 

TMA MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL Base Installation Access/Appearance Plan ................. 7,000 –7,000 0 TMA MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL Electrical Capacity and Cooling Towers ...................... 35,600 35,600 TMA MARYLAND FORT DETRICK USAMRIID Stage I, Incr 7 ............................................ 19,000 19,000 TMA MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD Dental Clinic ................................................................ 18,100 18,100 TMA NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement ............................. 71,023 71,023 TMA NEW YORK FORT DRUM, NEW YORK Soldier Specialty Care Clinic ....................................... 17,300 17,300 TMA NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Medical Clinic Replacement ........................................ 21,200 21,200 

TMA NORTH CAROLINA SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB Medical Clinic Replacement ........................................ 53,600 53,600 TMA SOUTH CAROLINA SHAW AFB Medical Clinic Replacement ........................................ 57,200 57,200 TMA TEXAS FORT BLISS Hospital Replacement Incr 4 ....................................... 207,400 –100,000 107,400 TMA TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Ambulatory Care Center Phase 3 Incr ......................... 80,700 80,700 TMA VIRGINIA NORFOLK Veterinary Facility Replacement .................................. 8,500 8,500 TMA GERMANY RHINE ORDNANCE BARRACKS Medical Center Replacement Incr 2 ............................ 127,000 127,000 TMA KOREA KUNSAN AIR BASE Medical/Dental Clinic Addition .................................... 13,000 13,000 TMA KOREA OSAN AFB Hospital Addition/Alteration ......................................... 34,600 34,600 DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 3,000 3,000 

DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION .......................... 7,254 7,254 

DODEA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 4,091 4,091 

NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Unspecified Minor Milcon ............................................ 3,000 3,000 

SOCOM WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Unspecified Minor Const .............................................. 10,000 10,000 

TJS WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Exercise Related Minor Construction ........................... 6,440 6,440 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
448 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

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

TMA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Minor Construction ....................................................... 5,000 5,000 

DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Planning and Design ................................................... 47,978 47,978 

DIA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Planning and Design ................................................... 2,919 2,919 

DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

PLANNING & DESIGN .................................................... 5,000 5,000 

DODEA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Planning and Design ................................................... 105,569 105,569 

MDA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Planning and Design ................................................... 4,548 4,548 

NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Planning and Design ................................................... 8,300 8,300 

SOCOM WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Planning and Design ................................................... 27,620 27,620 

TMA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Planning and Design ................................................... 105,700 105,700 

WHS WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Planning and Design ................................................... 7,928 7,928 

Milcon,Def-Wide—SUBTOTAL ....................................................................................................................................................... 3,654,623 –219,500 3,435,123 Services MILCON—TOTAL ............................................................................................................................................................ 7,668,131 –663,914 7,004,217 

MCon,Army NG ARMY, NG ALABAMA FORT MCCLELLAN 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
449 

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 HAWAII KAPOLEI Army Aviation Support Facility Ph1 ............................. 28,000 28,000 ARMY, NG IDAHO ORCHARD TRAINING 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 ARMY, NG MASSACHUSETTS CAMP EDWARDS Unit Training Equipment Site ...................................... 22,000 22,000 ARMY, NG MINNESOTA CAMP RIPLEY Scout Reconnaissance 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 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 WASHINGTON FORT LEWIS Readiness Center ......................................................... 35,000 35,000 ARMY, NG WEST VIRGINIA LOGAN Readiness Center ......................................................... 14,200 14,200 ARMY, NG WISCONSIN WAUSAU Field Maintenance Shop .............................................. 10,000 10,000 ARMY, NG GUAM BARRIGADA JFHQ Ph4 ...................................................................... 8,500 8,500 ARMY, NG PUERTO RICO CAMP SANTIAGO Readiness Center ......................................................... 3,800 3,800 ARMY, NG PUERTO RICO CEIBA Refill Station Building ................................................. 2,200 2,200 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
450 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

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

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 WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 15,057 15,057 

ARMY, NG WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Planning and Design ................................................... 26,622 26,622 

MCon,Army NG—Subtotal ............................................................................................................................................................ 613,799 613,799 

MCon,Air NG AF, NG CALIFORNIA FRESNO YOSEMITE IAP 

ANG 

F–15 Conversion .......................................................... 11,000 11,000 

AF, NG HAWAII Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam TFI—F–22 Combat Apron Addition ............................. 6,500 6,500 AF, NG NEW MEXICO KIRTLAND AFB Alter Target Intelligence Facility .................................. 8,500 8,500 AF, NG WYOMING CHEYENNE MAP C–130 Flight Simulator Training Facility .................... 6,486 6,486 AF, NG WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 5,900 5,900 AF, NG WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS Planning and Design ................................................... 4,000 4,000 

MCon,Air NG—Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................ 42,386 42,386 

NG MILCON—TOTAL ...................................................................................................................................................................... 656,185 656,185 

MCon,A Res ARMY, RESERVE CALIFORNIA FORT HUNTER LIGGETT ORTC ............................................................................ 64,000 64,000 ARMY, RESERVE CALIFORNIA FORT HUNTER LIGGETT UPH Barracks ............................................................... 4,300 4,300 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
451 

ARMY, RESERVE CALIFORNIA TUSTIN Army Reserve Center .................................................... 27,000 27,000 ARMY, RESERVE ILLINOIS FORT SHERIDAN Army Reserve Center .................................................... 28,000 28,000 ARMY, RESERVE MARYLAND ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Army Reserve Center .................................................... 21,000 21,000 ARMY, RESERVE MARYLAND BALTIMORE Add/Alt Army Reserve Center ....................................... 10,000 10,000 ARMY, RESERVE MASSACHUSETTS DEVENS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA Automatic Record Fire Range ...................................... 4,800 4,800 ARMY, RESERVE MASSACHUSETTS DEVENS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA Combat Pistol/MP Firearms Qualification ................... 3,700 3,700 ARMY, RESERVE NEVADA LAS VEGAS Army Reserve Center/AMSA .......................................... 21,000 21,000 ARMY, RESERVE NEW JERSEY Joint Base McGuire-Dix- Lakehurst Automated Infantry Squad Battle Course ................... 7,400 7,400 ARMY, RESERVE WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis-McChord Army Reserve Center .................................................... 40,000 40,000 ARMY, RESERVE WISCONSIN FORT MCCOY Central Issue Facility ................................................... 12,200 12,200 ARMY, RESERVE WISCONSIN FORT MCCOY Dining Facility .............................................................. 8,600 8,600 ARMY, RESERVE WISCONSIN FORT MCCOY ECS Tactical Equip. Maint. Facility (TEMF) ................. 27,000 27,000 ARMY, RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 10,895 10,895 ARMY, RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS Planning and Design ................................................... 15,951 15,951 

MCon,A Res—Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................. 305,846 305,846 

Milcon, Naval 

Res 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
452 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

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

NAVY, RESERVE ARIZONA YUMA Reserve Training Facility—Yuma AZ .......................... 5,379 5,379 NAVY, RESERVE IOWA FORT DES MOINES Joint Reserve Center—Des Moines IA ......................... 19,162 19,162 NAVY, RESERVE LOUISIANA NEW ORLEANS Transient Quarters ....................................................... 7,187 7,187 NAVY, RESERVE NEW YORK BROOKLYN Vehicle Maint. Fac.—Brooklyn NY ............................... 4,430 4,430 NAVY, RESERVE TEXAS FORT WORTH Commercial Vehicle Inspection Site ............................ 11,256 11,256 NAVY, RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Planning and Design ................................................... 2,118 2,118 

Milcon, Naval Res—Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................... 49,532 49,532 

MCon,AF Res AF, RESERVE NEW YORK NIAGARA FALLS IAP Flight Simulator Facility .............................................. 6,100 6,100 AF, RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 2,000 2,000 AF, RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS Planning and Design ................................................... 2,879 2,879 

MCon,AF Res—Subtotal ............................................................................................................................................................... 10,979 10,979 

Reserve Milcon—TOTAL ............................................................................................................................................................... 366,357 366,357 MILCON Major Accounts—TOTAL ................................................................................................................................................ 8,690,673 –663,914 8,026,759 

Chem-Demil 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 

ChemDemil / NSIP—Total ........................................................................................................................................................... 151,000 151,000 

NSIP 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
453 

NSIP WORLDWIDE UNSPEC NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM NATO Security Investment Program ............................. 254,163 254,163 

NATO Security Investment Program ........................................................................................................................................... 254,163 254,163 

Army Fam 

Housing 

FH Const,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Family Housing P&D .................................................... 4,641 4,641 

Army Fam Hsg Construction—Subtotal ..................................................................................................................................... 4,641 4,641 

FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Utilities Account ........................................................... 88,112 88,112 

FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Services Account .......................................................... 13,487 13,487 

FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Management Account .................................................. 56,970 56,970 

FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Miscellaneous Account ................................................. 620 620 

FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Furnishings Account .................................................... 31,785 31,785 

FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Leasing ......................................................................... 203,533 203,533 

FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Maintenance of Real Property ..................................... 109,534 109,534 

FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Privatization Support Costs ......................................... 26,010 26,010 

Army Fam Hsg O&M—Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................... 530,051 530,051 Army Fam Hsg—TOTAL ................................................................................................................................................................ 534,692 534,692 

Navy Fam 

Housing 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
454 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

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

FH Const,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Improvements ............................................................... 97,655 97,655 

FH Const,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Design .......................................................................... 4,527 4,527 

Navy Fam Hsg Construction—Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................... 102,182 102,182 

FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Utilities Account ........................................................... 80,860 80,860 

FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Furnishings Account .................................................... 17,697 17,697 

FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Management Account .................................................. 62,741 62,741 

FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Miscellaneous Account ................................................. 491 491 

FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Services Account .......................................................... 19,615 19,615 

FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Leasing ......................................................................... 83,774 83,774 

FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Maintenance of Real Property ..................................... 85,254 85,254 

FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Privatization Support Costs ......................................... 27,798 27,798 

Navy Fam Hsg O&M—Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................... 378,230 378,230 Navy Fam Hsg—TOTAL ................................................................................................................................................................ 480,412 480,412 

AF Fam Housing 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
455 

FH Con,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Improvements ............................................................... 79,571 79,571 

FH Con,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Planning and Design ................................................... 4,253 4,253 

AF Fam Hsg Construction—Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................... 83,824 83,824 

FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Utilities Account ........................................................... 75,662 75,662 

FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Management Account .................................................. 55,002 55,002 

FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Services Account .......................................................... 16,550 16,550 

FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Furnishings Account .................................................... 37,878 37,878 

FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Miscellaneous Account ................................................. 1,943 1,943 

FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Leasing ......................................................................... 62,730 62,730 

FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Maintenance (RPMA RPMC) ......................................... 201,937 201,937 

FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Housing Privatization ................................................... 46,127 46,127 

AF Fam Hsg O&M—Subtotal ....................................................................................................................................................... 497,829 497,829 

AF Fam Hsg—TOTAL .................................................................................................................................................................... 581,653 581,653 

Def-Wide Fam 

Housing 

FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Utilities Account ........................................................... 283 283 

FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Utilities Account ........................................................... 12 12 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
456 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

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

FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Furnishings Account .................................................... 4,660 4,660 

FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Furnishings Account .................................................... 20 20 

FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Services Account .......................................................... 31 31 

FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Management Account .................................................. 371 371 

FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Furnishings Account .................................................... 66 66 

FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Leasing ......................................................................... 35,333 35,333 

FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Leasing ......................................................................... 10,822 10,822 

FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Maintenance of Real Property ..................................... 567 567 

FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Maintenance of Real Property ..................................... 73 73 

DefWide Fam Hsg O&M—Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................. 52,238 52,238 

DoD FH Imprv 

Fd 

DoD FH Imprv 

Fd 

WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

Family Housing Improvement Fund ............................. 1,786 1,786 

DoD Fam Hsg Imprv Fd—Subtotal ............................................................................................................................................. 1,786 1,786 

FAM HSG—TOTAL ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,650,781 1,650,781 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
457 

BRAC IV BRAC, A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC BASE REALIGNMENT & 

CLOSURE, ARMY 

Base Realignment & Closure ...................................... 79,893 79,893 

BRAC, N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC BASE REALIGNMENT & 

CLOSURE, NAVY 

Base Realignment & Closure ...................................... 146,951 146,951 

BRAC, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC BASE REALIGNMENT & 

CLOSURE, AF 

Base Realignment & Closure ...................................... 122,552 122,552 

BRAC IV—TOTAL ........................................................................................................................................................................... 349,396 349,396 

2005 BRAC ARMY BRAC BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

USA–121: FORT GILLEM, GA ........................................ 4,976 4,976 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

USA–222: FORT MCPHERSON, GA ................................ 6,772 6,772 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT VARIOUS LOCATIONS ........... 20,453 20,453 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

USA–223: FORT MONMOUTH, NJ .................................. 9,989 9,989 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

USA–36: RED RIVER ARMY DEPOT .............................. 1,385 1,385 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

USA–113: FORT MONROE, VA ...................................... 12,184 12,184 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

USA–236: RC TRANSFORMATION IN CT ....................... 557 557 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

USA–242: RC TRANSFORMATION IN NY ....................... 172 172 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

USA–253: RC TRANSFORMATION IN PA ....................... 100 100 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

USA–212: USAR CMD & CNTRL—NEW ENGLAND ....... 222 222 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
458 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

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

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

USA–167: USAR COMMAND AND CONTROL—NE ........ 175 175 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

IND–112: RIVER BANK ARMY AMMO PLANT, CA ......... 22,431 22,431 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

IND–119: NEWPORT CHEMICAL DEPOT, IN .................. 197 197 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

IND–106: KANSAS ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT, KS ...... 7,280 7,280 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

IND–110: MISSISSIPPI ARMY AMMO PLANT, MS .......... 160 160 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

IND–122: LONE STAR ARMY AMMO PLANT, TX ............ 11,379 11,379 

BRAC—Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

MED–2: WALTER REED NMMC, BETHESDA, MD ........... 7,787 7,787 

BRAC—Army—Subtotal ............................................................................................................................................................... 106,219 106,219 

NAVY BRAC BRAC—Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

DON–172: NWS SEAL BEACH, CONCORD, CA .............. 2,129 2,129 

BRAC—Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

DON–138: NAS BRUNSWICK, ME ................................. 4,897 4,897 

BRAC—Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

DON–157: MCSA KANSAS CITY, MO ............................. 39 39 

BRAC—Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

DON–84: JRB WILLOW GROVE & CAMBRIA REG AP .... 189 189 

BRAC—Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

DON–168: NS NEWPORT, RI ......................................... 1,742 1,742 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
459 

BRAC—Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

DON–100: PLANNING, DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT ...... 5,038 5,038 

BRAC—Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

DON–101: VARIOUS LOCATIONS ................................... 4,176 4,176 

BRAC—Navy—Subtotal ............................................................................................................................................................... 18,210 18,210 

AF BRAC BRAC—Air 

Force 

WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT VARIOUS LOCATIONS ........... 605 605 

BRAC—Air 

Force 

WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

MED–57: BROOKS CITY BASE, TX ................................ 326 326 

BRAC—Air 

Force 

WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 

LOCATIONS 

COMM ADD 3: GALENA FOL, AK ................................... 1,337 1,337 

BRAC—Air Force—Subtotal ....................................................................................................................................................... 2,268 2,268 

BRAC 2005—TOTAL ...................................................................................................................................................................... 126,697 126,697 

BRAC IV + BRAC 2005—TOTAL ................................................................................................................................................... 476,093 476,093 

MILCON GRAND TOTAL .................................................................................................................................................................. 11,222,710 –663,914 10,558,796 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(461) 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
462 

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 Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Discretionary Summary By Appropriation 

Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: 

Energy Programs 

Electricity delivery and energy reliability ................................................................................................................ 6,000 –6,000 0 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National nuclear security administration: 

Weapons activities .......................................................................................................................................... 7,577,341 25,000 7,602,341 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................................... 2,458,631 0 2,458,631 

Naval reactors ................................................................................................................................................ 1,088,635 37,986 1,126,621 Office of the administrator ............................................................................................................................ 411,279 –25,000 386,279 

Total, National nuclear security administration ................................................................................................... 11,535,886 37,986 11,573,872 Environmental and other defense activities: 

Defense environmental cleanup ..................................................................................................................... 5,472,001 –463,000 5,009,001 Other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. 735,702 0 735,702 

Total, Environmental & other defense activities ................................................................................................. 6,207,703 –463,000 5,744,703 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
463 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ........................................................................................................................ 17,743,589 –425,014 17,318,575 

Total, Discretionary Funding ............................................................................................................................................................. 17,749,589 –431,014 17,318,575 

Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability 

Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability 

Infrastructure security & energy restoration .................................................................................................................... 6,000 –6,000 0 

Weapons Activities 

Directed stockpile work 

Life extension programs 

B61 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 369,000 369,000 W76 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 174,931 174,931 

Total, Life extension programs ....................................................................................................................................... 543,931 0 543,931 Stockpile systems 

B61 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 72,364 72,364 W76 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 65,445 25,000 90,445 W78 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 139,207 139,207 W80 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 46,540 46,540 B83 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 57,947 57,947 W87 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 85,689 85,689 W88 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 123,217 123,217 

Total, Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................. 590,409 25,000 615,409 

Weapons dismantlement and disposition 

Operations and maintenance .................................................................................................................................. 51,265 51,265 

Stockpile services 

Production support .................................................................................................................................................. 365,405 365,405 Research and development support ........................................................................................................................ 28,103 28,103 R&D certification and safety ................................................................................................................................... 191,632 191,632 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
464 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Management, technology, and production .............................................................................................................. 175,844 175,844 Plutonium sustainment ........................................................................................................................................... 141,685 141,685 

Total, Stockpile services ................................................................................................................................................. 902,669 0 902,669 

Total, Directed stockpile work ................................................................................................................................................ 2,088,274 25,000 2,113,274 

Campaigns: 

Science campaign 

Advanced certification ............................................................................................................................................. 44,104 44,104 Primary assessment technologies ........................................................................................................................... 94,000 94,000 Dynamic materials properties ................................................................................................................................. 97,000 97,000 Advanced radiography ............................................................................................................................................. 30,000 30,000 Secondary assessment technologies ....................................................................................................................... 85,000 85,000 

Total, Science campaign ................................................................................................................................................. 350,104 0 350,104 

Engineering campaign 

Enhanced surety ...................................................................................................................................................... 46,421 46,421 Weapon systems engineering assessment technology ............................................................................................ 18,983 18,983 Nuclear survivability ................................................................................................................................................ 21,788 21,788 Enhanced surveillance ............................................................................................................................................. 63,379 63,379 

Total, Engineering campaign .......................................................................................................................................... 150,571 0 150,571 

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield campaign 

Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support ................................................................................................ 81,942 81,942 Ignition ..................................................................................................................................................................... 84,172 84,172 Support of other stockpile programs ...................................................................................................................... 14,817 14,817 Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion .............................................................................................................. 6,044 6,044 Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas ..................................................................................... 8,334 8,334 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
465 

Facility operations and target production ............................................................................................................... 264,691 264,691 

Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield campaign ....................................................................................... 460,000 0 460,000 Advanced simulation and computing campaign ............................................................................................................. 600,000 600,000 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 0 1,690,770 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
466 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

08–D–802 High explosive pressing facility Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX ................................................................. 24,800 24,800 06–D–141 PED/Construction, UPFY–12, Oak Ridge, TN ......................................................................................... 340,000 –340,000 0 06–D–141 PED/Construction, UPFY–12, Phase I, Oak Ridge, TN .......................................................................... 0 340,000 340,000 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 450,134 0 450,134 

Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities .................................................................................................................. 2,239,828 0 2,239,828 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 90,001 

Total, Site stewardship ............................................................................................................................................................. 90,001 0 90,001 

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 25,000 7,602,341 

Total, Weapons Activities .................................................................................................................................................................. 7,577,341 25,000 7,602,341 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
467 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Nonproliferation and verification R&D 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................... 398,186 398,186 Domestic Enrichment R&D .............................................................................................................................................. 150,000 150,000 

Subtotal, Nonproliferation and verification R&D .................................................................................................................. 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 .............................................................................................................................................. 466,021 466,021 Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 62,000 62,000 

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .................................................................................................................................... 2,458,631 0 2,458,631 Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 2,458,631 0 2,458,631 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
468 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Naval Reactors 

Naval reactors development ...................................................................................................................................................... 418,072 418,072 Ohio replacement reactor systems development ...................................................................................................................... 89,700 37,986 127,686 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 43,212 

Subtotal, Naval Reactors .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,088,635 37,986 1,126,621 

Total, Naval Reactors ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,088,635 37,986 1,126,621 

Office Of The Administrator 

Office of the administrator ....................................................................................................................................................... 411,279 –25,000 386,279 

Total, Office Of The Administrator ................................................................................................................................................... 411,279 –25,000 386,279 Defense Environmental Cleanup 

Closure sites: 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
469 

Closure sites administration ............................................................................................................................................ 1,990 1,990 

Hanford site: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations ................................................................................................................... 389,347 389,347 Central plateau remediation ............................................................................................................................................ 558,820 558,820 Richland community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................... 15,156 15,156 

Total, Hanford site .................................................................................................................................................................... 963,323 0 963,323 Idaho National Laboratory: 

Idaho cleanup and waste disposition .............................................................................................................................. 396,607 396,607 Idaho community and regulatory support ........................................................................................................................ 3,000 3,000 

Total, Idaho National Laboratory ............................................................................................................................................. 399,607 0 399,607 

NNSA sites 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ......................................................................................................................... 1,484 1,484 Nuclear facility D&D Separations Process Research 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
470 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Tank farm activities 

Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ............................................................................................. 482,113 482,113 

Total, Office of River protection ............................................................................................................................................. 1,172,113 0 1,172,113 

Savannah River sites: 

Savannah River risk management operations ................................................................................................................. 444,089 444,089 SR community and regulatory support ............................................................................................................................ 16,584 16,584 Radioactive liquid tank waste: 

Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ................................................................................. 698,294 698,294 Construction: 

05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah River .......................................................................... 22,549 22,549 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
471 

Savannah River Site ......................................................................................................................................................... 121,977 121,977 Waste Isolation Pilot Project ............................................................................................................................................ 4,977 4,977 West Valley ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2,015 2,015 

Total, Safeguards and Security ............................................................................................................................................... 237,019 0 237,019 

Technology development ............................................................................................................................................................ 20,000 20,000 Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution ............................................................................................................................ 463,000 –463,000 0 

Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup ....................................................................................................................................... 5,494,124 –463,000 5,031,124 

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 –463,000 5,009,001 

Other Defense Activities 

Health, safety and security 

Health, safety and security .............................................................................................................................................. 139,325 139,325 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 106,175 106,175 

Total, Health, safety and security ........................................................................................................................................... 245,500 0 245,500 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
472 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Subtotal, Other defense activities .................................................................................................................................................... 735,702 0 735,702 

Total, Other Defense Activities ......................................................................................................................................................... 735,702 0 735,702 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
473 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

Departmental Recommendations 

Seven separate legislative proposals on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 were submitted as executive 

communications to the President of the Senate by the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs of the Department of 

Defense and subsequently referred to the committee. Information 

on these executive communications appears below. All of these executive communications are available for review at the committee. 

Executive Communication No. Dated Received in the Committee on Armed Services 

EC–5400 ................................................. March 14, 2012 ..................................... March 20, 2012 

EC–5605 ................................................. April 6, 2012 ......................................... April 18, 2012 

EC–5606 ................................................. March 28, 2012 ..................................... April 18, 2012 

EC–5753 ................................................. April 9, 2012 ......................................... April 19, 2012 

EC–5813 ................................................. April 18, 2012 ....................................... April 26, 2012 

EC–6018 ................................................. April 25, 2012 ....................................... April 30, 2012 

EC–6016 ................................................. May 4, 2012 .......................................... May 8, 2012 

Committee Action 

The committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2013 passed by roll call vote, 26–0, as follows: 

In favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson, Webb, 

McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, 

Portman, Ayotte, Collins, Graham, Cornyn, and Vitter. Opposed: 

None. 

The 6 other roll call votes on motions and amendments to the bill 

which were considered during the course of the full committee 

markup are as follows: 

1. MOTION: To conduct Full Committee markups in closed session because classified information will be discussed. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 18–8. 

In Favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson, 

Webb, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Blumenthal, McCain, 

Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Portman, and Graham. 

Opposed: Senators McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Brown, 

Ayotte, Collins, Cornyn, and Vitter. 

2. MOTION: To authorize the use of Department of Defense 

funds for abortion in cases of rape and incest. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 16–10. 

In Favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Webb, 

McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, McCain, Brown, and Collins. 

Opposed: Senators Nelson, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, 

Portman, Ayotte, Graham, Cornyn, and Vitter. 

3. MOTION: To make certain alternative fuel procurement requirements, as required by Section 526 of the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007, inapplicable to the Department of Defense. 

VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 13–13. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
474 

In Favor: Senators Webb, Manchin, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, 

Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, Graham, Cornyn, and 

Vitter. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson, 

McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 

and Collins. 

4. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the use 

of funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense in FY 2013 from being obligated or expended for the production or sole purchase of an alternative fuel if the cost exceeds the 

cost of traditional fossil fuels used for the same purpose, except for 

continued testing purposes. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 13–12. 

In Favor: Senators Webb, Manchin, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, 

Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, Graham, Cornyn, and 

Vitter. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson, 

McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Shaheen, Gillibrand, and 

Blumenthal. 

5. MOTION: To prohibit the construction of a biofuels refinery or 

any other facility or infrastructure used to refine biofuels unless 

the requirement is specifically authorized by law. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 13–12. 

In Favor: Senators Webb, McCaskill, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, 

Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, Graham, Cornyn, and 

Vitter. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson, 

Manchin, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Shaheen, Gillibrand, and 

Blumenthal. 

6. MOTION: To include sense of the Senate language providing 

notice to Congress on unfunded priorities. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 14–10. 

In Favor: Senators Levin, Akaka, Nelson, Webb, McCaskill, 

Udall, Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Chambliss, Wicker, and Portman. 

Opposed: Senators Lieberman, Reed, Begich, McCain, Inhofe, 

Sessions, Brown, Ayotte, Collins, and Cornyn. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office 

cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the 

time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented 

during Senate floor debate on the legislation. 

Regulatory Impact 

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be 

included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there 

is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2013. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
475 

Changes in Existing Law 

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by 

certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of 

the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary 

to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the 

business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(476) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. BEGICH 

I am pleased the committee included a legislative provision in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 entitled ‘‘Criteria for decisions involving certain base closure and realignment activities.’’ This legislative provision includes a one-year 

moratorium on any action that would result in a military installation covered under paragraph (1) of section 2687(a) of title 10, 

United States Code, to no longer be covered by that section. 

As stated in the February 2012 document sent to Congress titled, 

‘‘Force Structure Changes: Sustaining Readiness and Modernizing 

the Total Force,’’ the Air Force is proposing to ‘‘relocate our F–16 

Aggressor Squadron in Alaska from Eielson AFB to Elmendorf 

AFB, allowing us to achieve savings in base support at Eielson beginning in FY15.’’ Subsequent documentation provided to Congress, 

including an April 2012 Alaska Congressional Delegation brief and 

May 14, 2012 letter from the Secretary of the Air Force, confirms 

the proposed action entails a reduction of approximately 345 of the 

406 civilian personnel at Eielson AFB. The proposed action would 

clearly result in Eielson AFB being no longer covered under paragraph (1) of section 2687(a) of title 10, United States Code, and 

therefore subject to the one-year moratorium included in the bill. 

The one-year moratorium will allow Congress to fully understand 

the national security implications of this proposed action. The proposed action would result in the ‘‘warming’’ of one our nation’s 

most strategically advantageous air bases, the wisdom of which 

must further be questioned by Congress. The Air Force acknowledges the high military value of Eielson’s location. The base will 

become more strategic as we renew our focus on the Asia-Pacific 

and the Arctic becomes increasingly important. Eielson AFB is critical to the joint forces ability to project power into the Pacific Theater and rapidly deploy forces in support of contingencies and other 

events in the region. The drastic reduction at an installation in the 

Pacific Air Force’s area of operations is contrary to the new Defense Strategic Guidance. 

Additionally, the one-year moratorium will provide the Congress 

an opportunity to further examine the affordability and feasibility 

of implementation of the proposed action. This is especially important since no comprehensive analysis through the future years’ defense program has been conducted on this action. In fact, recent information suggests the proposed action at Eielson AFB will actually cost money in Fiscal Year 2013. The cost was unanticipated 

and will require the reprogramming of already constrained resources. This leads to questions of affordability since the Department of Defense must reduce spending in the near-term per the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
477 

Budget Control Act. In these fiscally constrained times we can no 

longer afford to make costly decisions we hope, but have not validated, will produce a return on investment. 

I am also pleased the legislative provision requires the Comptroller General to report Congress on the objective criteria used by 

the Department of Defense to make decisions relating to realignments of units employed at military installations that are not covered by the requirements of section 2687 of title 10, United States 

Code. The Air Force has determined the proposed action at Eielson 

AFB is not subject to the requirements of that law because civilian 

personnel layoffs are reductions-in-force and civilian personnel are 

only being reduced, not reduced and relocated. However, it is imperative proposed action at military bases falling below the requirements of section 2687 of title 10 are also unbiased, objective decisions in the best interest of national security and the taxpayer dollar. Those actions are also subject to Congressional oversight. 

The proposed action at Eielson AFB is an action that was rejected by the BRAC Commission in 2005 because of Eielson AFB’s 

high military value and because the Air Force overestimated cost 

savings. To date, the Air Force has not validated their proposed action or produced the objective criteria by which the decision was 

made. While Congress is mindful of budget constraints, force restructuring and reductions must not be used as a guise to conduct 

a BRAC without a formal BRAC Commission or process, which this 

committee did not authorize. 

MARK BEGICH. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(478) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. MCCAIN 

I voted in favor of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization bill approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

This bill represents a truly bipartisan effort to support our 

warfighters and maintain the readiness of the Armed Forces of the 

United States in difficult budget circumstances. While it is not perfect, I still unreservedly support it and will work for improvements 

when the bill is considered on the Senate floor and in conference 

with the House of Representatives. 

The Committee met under the threat of ‘sequestration’ mandated 

by last year’s Budget Control Act. Pentagon leadership has repeatedly warned that these additional cuts, totaling almost half a trillion dollars over the next decade, would devastate the Department’s ability to provide for the nation’s defense. Sequestration 

would undermine the readiness of the armed services, dramatically 

reduce our ability to project power and defend our interests, jeopardize the livelihood of civilian and uniformed personnel alike, and 

increase risk to national security - not to mention the shattering 

impact on our fragile economy with the potential for hundreds of 

thousands of layoffs. Furthermore, the way in which these automatic cuts would be applied to the Department of Defense would 

likely require that thousands of contracts be terminated and renegotiated, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. I am pleased that this 

bill includes my amendment that would require the Secretary of 

Defense to provide a detailed report on the specific impacts of sequestration. But this provision is only a first step. We cannot wait 

until a ‘lame duck’ session to deal with this looming disaster. We 

must begin to negotiate a solution to the problem now. 

Recognizing the difficult budget realities facing our nation, the 

Committee passed a bill that is consistent with the level of funding 

requested by the President. In addition, the bill requires the Department to reduce funding for civilian personnel and service contractors by five percent each over five years, saving over $5 billion—an important first step in eliminating the massive growth in 

overhead costs over the past several years and reducing the civilian 

workforce concurrently with the military personnel reductions proposed by the Secretary of Defense. 

While the Committee accepted most of the proposed reductions in 

military personnel end strengths, I have serious concerns with the 

Committee’s decision to freeze for one year proposed Air Force aircraft retirements and transfers and reverse personnel reductions 

proposed by the Air Force, pending the recommendations of a new 

commission. This is a decision that will cost the Air Force at least 

$1.4 billion in Fiscal Year 2013 alone. Secretary of Defense Panetta 

recently said that My concern is that if Congress now tries to reverse many of the tough decisions that we reached by adding several billion dollars to the president’s budget request, then they risk 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
479 

not only potential gridlock—[but] they could force the kind of tradeoffs that could jeopardize our national defense.’ This action subjects 

the military judgment of our senior leaders on difficult matters affecting national security to a commission’s review, simply because 

some states may lose jobs. 

I am also concerned about the cost of the new Defense Clandestine Service. I support the Department’s efforts to provide human 

intelligence collection support to the warfighter, but the Department must do this within existing resources and not grow the size 

of the federal payroll. Chairman Levin and I worked together to 

add a provision in the bill that would prohibit the use of military 

intelligence program funding for additional personnel for the Defense Clandestine Service. We also asked the Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation office in the Department of Defense to provide 

the Congress with an independent cost estimate for the Defense 

Clandestine Service. 

The bill continues the Committee’s aggressive pursuit of acquisition process improvements and management reforms by including 

provisions that prohibit the use of cost-type contracts for the production of major weapon systems; require the Department to revise 

its ‘profit policy’ to ensure a link between profit and actual performance; require the Department to notify Congress of potential 

termination liability on contracts for major weapon systems; and 

require the Department to implement recommendations by the 

General Accountability Office to eliminate duplicative programs 

and functions. 

Several provisions in the bill continue the Committee’s strong 

oversight of troubled programs. The bill would fence 50 percent of 

the funding for the second Ford-class aircraft carrier until the 

Navy recertifies the current $8.1 billion cost cap on CVN–79 and 

requires that the Navy report on how it will control its construction 

costs. Other provisions accelerate developmental testing of Littoral 

Combat Ships and enhance oversight of its Mission Modules; subject how the Air Force maintains and modernizes F–22A aircraft to 

greater oversight and monitors the aircraft’s oxygen supply problem; and continues strong oversight of the F–35 program, including 

concurrency, software development, production, and testing. 

I am also pleased that the Committee adopted an amendment to 

prohibit funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense System 

(MEADS). This provision will ensure that not another dollar is 

wasted on this persistently underperforming program that the 

Army never intended to procure and has no direct benefit to the 

warfighter. 

In addition, the Committee imposed restrictions on DOD expenditures to develop a commercial biofuels industry. There are many 

areas of research that are wholly appropriate to the Department of 

Defense mission, such as efforts to extend the life and reduce the 

weight of batteries, adapt solar technologies to battlefield conditions, and reduce fuel consumption through more efficient engines 

and weapon systems. But defense funds should not be used to invigorate a commercial industry that cannot provide an affordable 

product without heavy government subsidies. This is not a core defense need and should be left to the Department of Energy, which 

received over $4 billion last year for energy research and developVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00501 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
480 

ment and related programs, or to the private sector to take the 

lead. In a tough budget climate for the Defense Department, we 

need every dollar to protect our troops on the battlefield with energy technologies that reduce fuel demand and save lives. Spending 

$26 per gallon of biofuel is not consistent with that goal. The Committee’s action corrects this misplacement of priorities. 

Unfortunately, this bill once again authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary and unrequested projects. Some 

have argued that the Department of Defense does not have a ‘monopoly on good ideas.’ While this is certainly a valid statement, the 

Committee has an obligation to ensure that added funds, such as 

$30 million for supplemental impact aid to local educational agencies, result in tangible value to military families. And I do not believe the Committee should use terms like ‘Committee initiative’ to 

disguise additions to the budget that are earmarks by any other 

name. 

Two perennial additions that highlight the problem of 

unrequested authorizations are the Industrial Base Innovation 

Fund (IBIF) and the Defense Rapid Innovation Program (DRIP), 

which together are earmarked for $230 million in unrequested 

funds. I am pleased to note, however, that the Committee finally 

saw fit to quit authorizing the Metals Affordability Initiative—another perennial earmark (now termed a ‘Committee initiative’ since 

earmarks are officially banned). I have consistently said that, if the 

Department of Defense believes programs like IBIF and DRIP are 

worthwhile, they need to start expressing that sentiment by including them in the budget request. When our men and women in uniform are being asked to sacrifice so much, this Committee should 

reassess our priorities and stop pushing our special interests. 

There is another new form of earmark—what our critics have 

come to call ‘phone-marks.’ I intend to offer an amendment during 

Senate floor consideration of the bill that will ‘make them famous’ 

by requiring the Administration to publish a record of any calls, 

emails, or other correspondence from Members or their staff who 

seek to direct funding from any program that should be awarded 

on the basis of competition or merit-based processes to non-competitive, non-merit-based activities. 

Modernization is essential to the future viability of the nuclear 

weapons complex and was a key condition for the Senate’s ratification of the New START Treaty. However, it has been just over a 

year since the treaty entered into force, and the President has already failed to honor his 10-year commitment to nuclear modernization. I am pleased the Committee adopted language reaffirming Congress’ rejection of the President’s decision to undermine nuclear modernization and restating our commitment to ensuring the 

safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons enterprise. 

The bill also provides the Department of Defense authority to 

transfer a limited amount of funding to the Department of Energy 

to fulfill this important commitment. 

I believe that cyber warfare will be the key battlefield of the 21st 

century, and I am concerned about our ability to fight and win in 

this new domain. I authored a provision in the bill that requires 

the commander of U.S. Cyber Command to provide a strategy for 

the development and deployment of offensive cyber capabilities. I 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
481 

am very concerned that our strategy is too reliant on defensive 

measures in cyber space, and believe we need to develop the capability to go on the offense as well. This provision to craft a comprehensive strategy should spur U.S. Cyber Command to develop 

this offensive capability effectively and at a reasonable cost to the 

taxpayer. 

Again this year, the Committee restricted further construction on 

Guam related to the realignment of U.S. Marines in the Pacific theater until Congress has a clear understanding of the costs and strategic implications of the proposed force realignments on our strong 

allies in the region. The bill also contains no funding for Office of 

Economic Adjustment activities on Guam and requires future requests for the construction of public facilities and infrastructure to 

be specifically authorized by law. 

Another provision in this bill puts restrictions on reimbursements to Pakistan from Coalition Support Funds. Before making 

any such reimbursements, the Secretary of Defense must certify to 

Congress that Pakistan is maintaining open supply lines through 

Pakistan into Afghanistan for coalition forces, is not supporting or 

providing safe haven to militant extremist groups such as the 

Haqqani Network and the Afghan Taliban Quetta Shura, is committed to a strategy to counter the production and use of improvised explosive devices, and is not detaining, prosecuting, or imprisoning citizens of Pakistan as a result of their cooperation with 

U.S. counterterrorism operations. This last condition is a clear 

statement of the Committee’s outrage at the 33-year prison sentence given to Dr. Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who assisted 

us in our search for Osama bin Laden. Rather than being charged 

with treason and imprisoned, Dr. Afridi should be commended for 

his courageous and patriotic efforts to help locate the most wanted 

terrorist in the world. And while it is of great importance that the 

United States and Pakistan work constructively together, Dr. 

Afridi’s treatment as a criminal will only do further harm to U.S.- 

Pakistani relations, including diminishing the willingness of Congress to provide financial and security assistance to Pakistan. 

In light of the new political and security challenges facing Egypt, 

the bill also includes a provision that encourages the Secretary of 

Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to consult 

with Egypt’s civilian and military leaders as part of a comprehensive review of the U.S. security relationship with Egypt. 

Finally, at a time when our armed forces are still engaged in operations in Afghanistan and deployed elsewhere around the world, 

the defense authorization bill addresses vitally important policy, 

programmatic, and personnel issues. The Congress must give priority to completing action on this legislation in a timely fashion. I 

am pleased to support this bill and look forward to a spirited discussion on the floor of the Senate this summer and in conference 

with the House Armed Services Committee in the fall.’’ 

JOHN MCCAIN. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(482) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. INHOFE 

I voted in favor of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization bill approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee. The 

reporting out of the 51st consecutive National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by the Senate Armed Services Committee comes 

at a critical time for our national security and our military. This 

bill represents a bipartisan effort to support our war fighters and 

maintain the readiness of the best military in the world. 

The bill includes language reaffirming this nation’s need to continue nuclear modernization and for this Administration to uphold 

the commitments it made to Congress and the American people to 

modernize our entire nuclear enterprise when it ratified the New 

START Treaty. It authorizes an increase of $100 million for additional Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors. 

The bill also provides our military heroes with a well-deserved 

1.7% across the board pay raise and addresses long-term TRICARE 

sustainability issues. The bill does not allow proposed increases in 

TRICARE fees proposed in fiscal year 2013. Simply increasing fees 

to keep pace with medical inflation will make TRICARE too expensive for beneficiaries to afford. Eligible TRICARE beneficiaries opting out of the program due to cost or inconvenience is as great a 

threat as rising medical costs. 

The bill also includes language that will improve the care of our 

military personnel suffering the effects of Traumatic Brain Injury 

and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The measure urges the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to continue to make improvements in the management, mission, and programs of the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic 

Brain Injury and to include evaluating organization changes that 

could improve the centers’ leadership and strategic direction. 

The Senate took a significant step to rein in the radical green 

agenda that President Obama is attempting to impose on our military. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a Senior Member of the Senate Armed 

Services Committee, I have been committed to stopping the Administration from forcing the Department of Defense (DOD) to spend 

enormous amounts of scarce resources on pointless global warming 

efforts and unjustified alternative fuels, all while the President is 

gutting our military, drastically reducing DOD’s budget, and cutting core programs that are vital to our troops’ safety. This committee came together in a bipartisan fashion to prevent President 

Obama from achieving many aspects of his war on affordable energy in the Defense Department. I was disappointed that a measure making certain provisions in Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 inapplicable to the DOD was 

not included. The Department of Defense should have the flexiVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00504 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
483 

bility to use oil sands and the nation’s large supply to coal to meet 

energy needs while renewable solutions are being developed. 

I was extremely disappointed that this bill fails to contain language included in the FY12 bill that prohibits the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States—something that I will ensure is corrected when this bill comes to the 

floor. Additionally, an amendment was included that will permit 

taxpayer-funded abortions on military installations. For the past 

several years, social issues ranging from hate crimes to gay marriage have been attached to this bill. Playing politics with this annual legislation does a disservice to our service members, and I will 

fight to remove these provisions as the bill moves to the Senate 

floor for debate. 

International partnerships are critically important. As we have 

less men and women deployed around the world the standards of 

good practice, techniques and skills learned during various partnership exercises with nations will continue to pay dividends. I applaud the Committee for funding our International Military Education and Training program and train and equip programs, such 

as the 1206 Global Train and Equip program, and providing funding for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance assets in 

Central Africa. I am, however, disappointed with the funding provided to Israel for their missile defense, specifically increased funding for their Arrow, Arrow 3, David’s Sling and Iron Dome missile 

defense systems. 

Our nation faces significant fiscal challenges. Every agency must 

wring the most use out of every dollar spent. DOD is no exception, 

and I support principled decisions to make the DOD more efficient 

and effective. Nevertheless, a significant cut to the defense budget 

lead to decreased military capabilities and increased risk to our national security. Accepting more risk in a world where security 

threats are increasing is unacceptable because increased risk 

means putting the lives of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines in increased danger. It is difficult to maintain our current capabilities with flat defense budget growth. For some time, I have 

been an advocate for maintaining the defense budget at a minimum of 4% of the U.S. GDP. This amount will not only allow us 

to defend our nation and fulfill our commitments to our allies, it 

will also allow us to procure defense assets efficiently, research and 

develop new technologies and maintain our defense industrial base. 

Many threats exist in the world today and we should maintain 

force levels that allow us to continue the ability to fight two wars 

simultaneously should that be necessary. I disagree with the force 

structure cuts included in this bill and the $660 million cut from 

the President’s budget for military construction and family housing 

projects. The Air Force’s ‘‘strategic pause’’ in Military Construction 

funding forestalls necessary infrastructure investments. We continue to ask our Armed Forces to do more with less, when they are 

already stretched too thin. This legislation postpones many of the 

cuts proposed by the Air Force requires a commission to review the 

cuts proposed in the FY13 budget request. Furthermore, the bill 

prevents a Base Realignment and Closure round in 2013 and 2015. 

The bill also repeals dangerous changes made in the Fiscal Year 

2012 bill that affect DOD depots. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
484 

Year after year, President Obama’s cuts have disarmed our nation’s military. As with years past, President Obama’s budget for 

military spending is too low. On top of that, the threat of sequestration and the shift in national security strategy that focuses on 

the Asia-Pacific at the detriment of other vital areas comes close 

to breaking our commitment to the troops, to their commanders, 

and to protecting our nation. The threat of over one trillion dollars 

in cuts to national security programs required by the sequestration 

mechanism of the Budget Control Act of 2011 will make it impossible to recapitalize and reset our aging fleet of military equipment 

while maintaining the force structure required ensuring our national security. 

Congress must act quickly to provide the support necessary to 

our men and women in uniform. 

JAMES M. INHOFE. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(485) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. CHAMBLISS 

I am pleased that the Committee adopted my amendment expressing the Sense of the Senate that the Navy’s FY14 procurement of F–35 aircraft should not be reduced if the Navy chooses 

to procure additional F–18 aircraft in FY14, beyond what they are 

currently planning. The intention of my amendment is simply to 

express the fact that 4th generation aircraft like the F–18 cannot 

substitute for 5th generation aircraft like the F–35. The Department of Defense has acknowledged that some money taken from 

the F–35 program in recent years went to procure additional, less 

capable F–18s, and I am concerned this may continue. This Committee authorized a $5 billion, multi-year contract for 124 F–18s 

which will be in service for the next twenty years, will require an 

additional $10 billion to sustain over their service life if they are 

typical of other major weapon systems, but which are increasingly 

able to be used in fewer and fewer environments due to the proliferation of advanced air defense systems and the F–18’s inability 

to penetrate contested airspace. The Navy has stated that they 

have and will continue to have a ‘‘strike fighter gap’’ partly due to 

the delay in fielding the F–35, and this has been used to justify additional F–18 purchases. I am skeptical of this justification for two 

reasons. First, as mentioned above, the F–18 cannot perform the 

F–35 mission and the number of environments in which the F–18 

can operate freely is diminishing. Second, in the present budget environment, every military service is accepting gaps in force structure as well as accepting strategic risk, and I am not yet convinced 

that the Navy’s strike fighter gap is more of a strategic risk than 

other gaps the military services are currently accepting. Much of 

the discussion about the strike fighter gap revolves around the 

number of tactical aircraft necessary to fill the Navy’s carrier air 

wings, rather than the number of tactical aircraft needed to meet 

real warfighter requirements. Former Secretary of Defense Gates 

raised this two years ago when he said in relation to this issue, 

‘‘Before making claims of requirements not being met or alleged 

‘gaps’—in ships, tactical fighters, personnel or anything else—we 

need to evaluate the criteria upon which requirements are based 

in the wider, real-world context.’’ I believe we need to better scrutinize the strike fighter gap to make sure that the gap is tied to 

meeting clearly articulated Combatant Commander requirements. 

Also, as always, I believe we need to make wise use of taxpayer 

dollars and not over invest in equipment and technology whose use 

is increasingly constrained by other countries’ ability to counter it. 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(486) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MS. AYOTTE 

Building on its well-deserved reputation for bipartisanship in 

support of our men and women in uniform and American national 

security, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) voted 

unanimously to approve its version of the fiscal year 2013 National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In today’s partisan climate in 

Washington, this act of bipartisanship is worth celebrating. While 

this bill is not perfect, there are several praiseworthy components 

in areas related to sequestration, financial stewardship at the Pentagon, and military readiness that are worth highlighting. There 

are also a few omissions that I hope to address when the NDAA 

is considered on the floor of the U.S. Senate. 

Sequestration 

I applaud Senator McCain’s successful effort to include a provision in the NDAA approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the Secretary of Defense to provide a detailed report on the specific impacts of sequestration. I believe these details 

will further demonstrate the need for Congress to act now—and not 

wait until the ‘lame duck’ session—in order to replace the cuts associated with defense sequestration. 

However, to be clear, the testimony we have already received 

from the Secretary of Defense and other military leaders provides 

all the information we should need to warrant urgent action to prevent defense sequestration by coming together to find alternative 

reductions. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said that cuts 

under sequestration would be ‘‘devastating’’ and ‘‘catastrophic’’ and 

would ‘‘inflict severe damage to our national defense for generations.’’ 

The testimony of the service chiefs regarding defense sequestration makes it clear why these cuts will be so damaging. In addition 

to the proposed reduction of 72,000 soldiers in the size of the Army, 

General Odierno, the Army Chief of Staff, has testified that defense 

sequestration would force the Army to cut an additional 100,000 

soldiers—with about half coming from the National Guard and Reserve. Given the magnitude of these reductions, it is inevitable that 

tens of thousands of soldiers—most of them with more than one deployment—will be forced to leave the Army involuntarily. Such a 

step would not only break faith with service members who have 

sacrificed so much for our country, but could also have a damaging 

effect on the morale of those who continue to serve. 

The damage defense sequestration will inflict on the Marine 

Corps is equally concerning. Under sequestration, the Marine 

Corps will likely face a reduction of approximately 18,000 Marines—on top of a pending force cut of 20,000. Faced with that 

daunting prospect, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine 

Corps, General Dunford, recently testified that the Marines would 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
487 

not be able to conduct a ‘‘single major contingency operation.’’ That 

is alarming testimony coming from our nation’s 9–1–1 military 

force. 

Likewise, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Greenert, has 

testified that defense sequestration would force the Navy to cut 50 

to 55 more ships from a fleet that is already about 30 short of the 

required 313 vessels. Such a reduction would endanger our ability 

to protect critical shipping lanes that are the lifeblood of the U.S. 

economy. A dramatically smaller naval fleet caused by defense sequestration would also make a mockery of the President’s recently 

announced focus in the Asia-Pacific region and cause destabilizing 

concerns among allies in the region who face an ascendant China. 

According to testimony by senior Air Force officials, sequestration would threaten the Joint Strike Fighter program and the KC– 

46A supertanker—next generation aircraft that are critical to the 

future of U.S. air supremacy and mobility. 

Unfortunately, the cuts associated with defense sequestration 

will not just damage the individual services. These cuts will also 

inflict severe and irreversible damage to the nation’s defense industry—depriving our warfighters of the advanced technologies and 

weapons they need to accomplish their missions. Due to the already planned reductions and in anticipation of defense sequestration cuts, many defense contractors will not be able to wait until 

January to start laying-off employees. At a minimum, defense companies will have to start notifying their workers in October or November of mass layoffs and closures. For research and development 

and procurement cuts alone, one study estimates that over one million jobs within the defense industrial base will be lost. 

In addition to an enormous quantity of lay-offs that will undercut 

our tepid economic recovery, defense sequestration will force many 

small defense companies out of business. Many essential weapons 

systems rely on a large network of subcontractors and suppliers. 

For key components, prime contractors often have only one small 

business supplier. While large defense companies may be able to 

weather defense sequestration by laying-off employees, many small 

companies will be forced to go out of business. When these vendors 

go out of business, it is unlikely that they will come back—eliminating irreplaceable expertise and leaving the American military 

increasingly reliant on foreign suppliers. 

We cannot wait until after the elections to stop draconian defense sequestration cuts and find alternative spending reductions. 

Every day that action is delayed brings us one step closer to irreversible damage to our national defense. Failure to stop the sweeping, automatic defense sequestration cuts will diminish our military readiness, damage America’s defense industrial base, and result in massive lay-offs of defense workers. To prevent the catastrophic damage that defense sequestration cuts will inflict on our 

nation’s military, Congress needs to act now. 

Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars 

As our nation confronts a severe fiscal crisis, I believe spending 

must be scrutinized across the entire federal government, including 

spending at the Pentagon. As the defense budget tightens in the 

coming years, we must use every defense dollar wisely. For these 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
488 

reasons, I am pleased that the NDAA approved by the Senate 

Armed Services Committee includes many of the provisions that I 

have promoted to improve the Pentagon’s financial stewardship, reduce waste, and help bring greater transparency to the defense 

budget. 

Audit Readiness 

Last year, I introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would have required the Pentagon to complete a full 

statement of budget resources by 2014. This amendment passed 

the Senate unanimously, but was not included in the final bill. I 

am pleased to see that this year’s bill includes this requirement. In 

order to distinguish between necessary defense budget cuts and 

cuts that would harm our troops and damage military readiness, 

we must have reliable financial data and effective business processes and systems in place at the Pentagon. I look forward to working to ensure this important audit requirement is included in the 

final bill. 

Acquisition Reform 

I am also pleased that the NDAA approved by the Senate Armed 

Services Committee includes language that Senator McCain and I 

developed to prohibit the use of cost-type contracts for the production of major weapons systems in most cases. Cost-type contracts 

have a role to play in the development of some major weapons systems. However, in most cases, the use of cost-type contracts for the 

production of major weapons systems only facilitates spiraling acquisition costs that waste taxpayer dollars and deprive our 

warfighters of the resources they need. We can neither afford nor 

tolerate such wasteful acquisition habits going forward. I congratulate the department on their efforts to rein-in out of control acquisition costs, and I believe our provision in the NDAA regarding the 

use of cost-type contracts represents an important contribution in 

this effort. 

MEADS 

I am also encouraged that the Senate Armed Services Committee 

adopted the amendment I introduced, along with Senators Begich 

and McCain and others, to prohibit any funding for the Medium 

Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), a troubled weapons program that the Pentagon has said it does not plan to procure. The 

Department of Defense (DOD) chose to ignore both current law and 

congressional direction and requested $400.9 million for MEADS in 

the FY 2013 budget. Yet, the inclusion of our prohibition in this 

year’s bill sends a clear message to the Pentagon and to the appropriators: our nation must not waste any more money on MEADS. 

Military Construction Reform 

As the Department of Defense struggles to fund key readiness 

priorities within a tightening budgetary environment, it is imperative that contracts for the construction of DOD facilities comply 

with the law by not exceeding the scope of work authorized by Congress. Several recent Army and Air Force projects have exceeded 

the size specifically authorized by Congress in prior NDAAs. For 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
489 

this reason, I believe the inclusion of my provision to amend Section 2853 is essential to ensure the department provides unambiguous and comprehensive guidance to prevent human errors in military construction projects that have resulted in a violation of the 

law. 

Readiness 

Nuclear Modernization 

A reliable and modern nuclear deterrent is central to American 

national security. A credible nuclear arsenal deters potential enemies from launching a nuclear attack against our country or our 

allies. A strong and dependable U.S. nuclear deterrent also helps 

prevent nuclear proliferation by assuring friendly nations that a 

nuclear program is unnecessary. When the U.S. fails to maintain 

a reliable and modern nuclear deterrent we undermine these objectives which are central to the security of our country. 

The Senate’s ratification of the New START Treaty was contingent on the administration’s commitment to modernize the United 

States nuclear complex and strategic delivery systems. Section 

1251 of the fiscal year (FY) 2010 NDAA required that the administration submit a 10-year modernization plan. In response to this 

statutory requirement, in November 2010, the administration 

pledged to provide sufficient funding over the next five years relative to the initial plan provided to Congress in May 2010. 

While our nation’s fiscal crisis demands that we make difficult 

budget decisions, reductions to nuclear force levels mandated by 

New START cannot be made without unacceptable risk unless the 

arsenal and the weapons complex are modernized. For these reasons, I believe the inclusion of the nuclear modernization provision 

that I developed, along with Senator Lieberman, in the Senate 

Armed Services Committee version of the NDAA represents a positive step. This provision will require the president to annually certify whether plans to modernize or replace strategic nuclear delivery systems are fully funded. If the president does not fully fund 

modernization plans, he must report to Congress on the impact this 

lack of funding will have on U.S. military capability and provide 

a plan to address this capability shortfall. 

Maritime Prepositioning 

Last year, the Navy announced plans to place six of 16 ships 

from the three squadron Maritime Prepositioning Forces (MPF) for 

the Marine Corps into ‘‘reduced operating status’’ beginning in fiscal year (FY) 13. This year, the Navy wants to go a step further 

and actually wants to eliminate one of the three maritime 

prepositioning squadrons and to reduce the number of maritime 

prepositioning ships to 12 in FY 13. The maritime prepositioning 

squadron that would be eliminated is the squadron in the Mediterranean Sea. Eliminating this squadron in the Mediterranean region would slow the Marine Corps’ response time in the Mediterranean region, as well as along the west coast of Africa. 

While the Navy and Marine Corps have made a reasonable effort 

to identify risk mitigation strategies for this budget-driven decision, important questions remain. For example, the Marines have 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
490 

cited the Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway (MCPP–N) 

as a key way of mitigating the risk associated with the elimination 

of a maritime prepositioning squadron. Yet, significant questions 

remain regarding MCPP–N, including the kind of equipment stored 

there, the maintenance status of this equipment, shortfalls in the 

equipment, as well as how long it will take to load this equipment 

on ships and deliver it to the contingency location. I believe it is 

important to fully understand the strategic risk associated with the 

Navy’s plan before it moves forward in order to ensure the U.S. 

military maintains its readiness and can continue to respond quickly to contingencies. I am pleased that my amendment to the NDAA 

was included, requiring the Navy and Marine Corps to answer 

these questions before proceeding with the retirement of one of the 

maritime prepositioning squadrons. 

Army Dwell Time and Involuntary Separations 

As the Army implements end strength reductions in the coming 

years, it is essential to closely monitor the impact of these reductions on dwell time and the use of involuntary separations. The 

U.S. Army is currently planning to implement a 72,000 soldier reduction in the overall size of the Army between now and fiscal year 

2017. Depending on the future demand for U.S. ground forces, this 

reduction may exacerbate dwell times for many units that are 

struggling to give their soldiers sufficient time at home between deployments. This time at home allows units to train for the full spectrum of potential missions, to repair equipment, and to recuperate 

with their families. When time between deployments is cut short, 

all three areas suffer. Short dwell times undermine our military’s 

readiness for future contingencies. 

I am also concerned about the Army’s planned use of involuntary 

separations in order to achieve end strength reduction goals. Thomas Lamont, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and 

Reserve Affairs, testified that approximately 23,000–24,000 enlisted soldiers and 4,500–5,000 officers may have to be involuntarily separated from the Army to achieve the end strength reduction. I am pleased that the NDAA passed by the Senate Armed 

Services Committee includes my provision that will require the 

Army and Marine Corps to provide periodic reports regarding their 

use of involuntary separations. I believe involuntarily separating 

some of our best soldiers—many of whom will have deployed overseas multiple times—represents an unacceptable breach of faith 

with service members and their families who have sacrificed much 

for our country. Forcing pink slips into the hands of thousands of 

battle-hardened soldiers as they return home from deployments in 

order to meet an arbitrary and budget-driven reduction in the size 

of the Army could also endanger the morale of those who continue 

to serve. 

Using my reporting requirement included in this year’s NDAA, 

I plan to monitor Army dwell times carefully over the coming years 

to ensure our soldiers have sufficient time at home between deployments to recuperate with their families, repair their equipment, 

and train for full spectrum operations. I also plan to monitor the 

Army’s use of involuntary separations to ensure we treat our servVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:26 Jun 05, 2012 Jkt 074387 PO 00000 Frm 00512 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR173.XXX SR173

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
491 

ice members justly and that we do not take personnel actions that 

could damage the morale and readiness of the all-volunteer force. 

Naval Fleet 

The Chief of Naval Operations testified last year that the Navy 

needs 313 ships and submarines to meet its strategic requirements. 

The Navy currently has about 285 ships and subs. As a result, the 

Navy cannot meet many combatant commander requirements. For 

example, the Navy can only meet 61 percent of combatant commander requirements for attack submarines. Despite being approximately 30 ships short of the requirement and the inability of 

the Navy to meet combatant commander requirement, there are reports that the Navy may soon drop the requirement from 313 to 

300 ships and submarines. In light of the President’s strategy and 

the new focus on the Asia-Pacific, current operational requirements, and the emergence of competitors challenging U.S. naval 

dominance, it is difficult to understand why the Navy’s requirement for ships would be potentially declining. I am pleased that 

the SASC-approved NDAA includes my provision that will require 

the Navy to confirm the current requirement for ships and submarines and justify any change to the Navy’s requirement. 

Detainees 

I am pleased that the NDAA passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee includes provisions to extend the prohibition on the 

use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the U.S. for use by 

detainees transferred from Guantanamo. I am also pleased that the 

NDAA extends to 2013 the requirements for certifications on transfers of detainees to foreign countries and entities. 

However, I was disappointed this year’s NDAA did not extend 

the prohibition on the transfer or release to or within the U.S. of 

Guantanamo detainees. We have a top-rate facility at Guantanamo 

that allows for the secure and humane detention and interrogation 

of foreign terrorist detainees. It is unclear why this prohibition 

against bringing Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. would not have 

been extended into 2013, and I worry that it may signal an effort 

by the administration to bring Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. 

When the NDAA goes to the floor later this year, I plan to introduce an amendment to extend this prohibition on the transfer of 

Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. through 2013. 

I am also perplexed that the NDAA does not address the fact 

that our military still does not have a designated facility for the detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists. President Obama 

has sought to close Guantanamo and has refused to put new detainees there despite the repeated testimony of our military leaders 

that a designated detention facility for the long-term detention and 

interrogation of foreign terrorists would be very helpful. This refusal has put our military leaders in a difficult and dangerous situation. The lack of a designated long-term detention facility has 

forced our military to use sub-standard, ad-hoc workarounds as 

they did in the case of Abdul Kadir Warsarme. 

For the last year and a half, witness after witness has come before the Senate Armed Services Committee, including the Commander of Special Operations Command, Admiral McRaven, and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
492 

testified that there is no plan for where we would detain and interrogate someone like Ayman al-Zawahiri if we were to capture him. 

In April 2011, I questioned General Carter Ham, the Commander 

of Africa Command, about what we would do if we captured a 

member of al Qaeda in Africa. He said he would need, ‘‘some 

lawyerly help on answering that one.’’ That is testimony we should 

never hear from a combatant commander. 

The lack of a designated long-term detention facility also encourages the release of former Guantanamo detainees. Yet, almost 28% 

of detainees who have been released from Guantanamo have reengaged or are suspected of having reengaged in terrorist activity. 

Former Guantanamo detainees are conducting suicide bombings, 

recruiting radicals, and training them to kill Americans and our allies. Said al Shihri and Abdul Zakir represent two examples of 

former Guantanamo detainees who returned to the fight and assumed leadership positions in terrorist organizations dedicated to 

killing Americans and our allies. Said al Shihri has worked as the 

No. 2 in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Abdul Zakir now 

serves as a top Taliban military commander and a senior leader in 

the Taliban Quetta Shura. 

In February 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Michael Vickers, said, ‘‘The administration is in the final 

stages of establishing its detention policy.’’ More than a year later, 

we are still waiting. On March 6, 2012, during a Senate Armed 

Services Committee hearing, I asked the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, Admiral McRaven, whether anything 

had changed in the last year and whether we had a designated facility for the long-term detention and interrogation of foreign terrorist detainees. Admiral McRaven responded, ‘‘No, ma’am, nothing 

has changed since then.’’ 

This absence of a designated long-term detention and interrogation facility for foreign terrorists, consistent with the laws of war, 

represents a major national security shortcoming. I look forward to 

addressing this issue when the NDAA goes to the floor of the U.S. 

Senate for consideration. 

KELLY AYOTTE. 

Æ 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING