(c) ELEMENTS OF PROGRAM.—The program author-
ized by subsection (a) shall include— 
(1) integration and demonstration of advanced 
rotorcraft technology to meet the goals and objec-
tives described in subsection (b); and 
(2) flight demonstration of the advanced rotor-
craft technology test bed under the experimental air-
worthiness process of the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration or other appropriate airworthiness process 
approved by the Secretary of Defense. 
(d) QUALIFIED CONTRACTOR.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army 
may award a contract for the program authorized by 
subsection (a) to a contractor that— 
(A) has demonstrated the capability to de-
sign, fabricate, qualify, and flight test experi-
mental rotorcraft; and 
(B) maintains a reasonable level of aircraft 
flight risk liability insurance that names the 
Federal Government as an additional insured 
party. 
(2) SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN.—In awarding 
a contract under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
fully consider proposals submitted by small business
concerns (as defined in section 2225(f)(3) of title 
10, United States Code). 
SEC. 220. DESIGNATION OF MAIN PROPULSION SYSTEM OF 
THE 
NEXT-GENERATION 
LONG-RANGE 
STRIKE BOMBER AIRCRAFT AS MAJOR SUB-
PROGRAM. 
(a) DESIGNATION
AS MAJOR SUBPROGRAM.—Not 
later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of Defense shall designate the develop-
ment and procurement of the main propulsion system of 
the next-generation long-range strike bomber aircraft as 
a major subprogram of the next-generation long-range 
strike bomber aircraft major defense acquisition program, 
in accordance with section 2430a of title 10, United States 
Code. 
(b) COMPETITIVE
ACQUISITION
STRATEGY.—The 
Secretary of the Air Force shall develop an acquisition 
strategy for the major subprogram designated in sub-
section (a) that is in accordance with subsections (a) and 
(b) of section 202 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Re-
form Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–23; 123 Stat. 1720; 
10 U.S.C. 2430 note).
SEC. 221. DESIGNATION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC AIRCRAFT 
LAUNCH SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND PRO-
CUREMENT PROGRAM AS MAJOR SUBPRO-
GRAM. 
Not later than 30 days after the date of the enact-
ment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall designate 
the electromagnetic aircraft launch development and pro-
curement program as a major subprogram of the CVN– 
78 Ford-class aircraft carrier major defense acquisition 
program, in accordance with section 2430a of title 10, 
United States Code. 
SEC. 222. PROHIBITION ON DELEGATION OF BUDGETING 
AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN RESEARCH AND 
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS. 
(a) PROHIBITION ON DELEGATION.—Subsection (a) 
of section 2362 of title 10, United States Code, is amend-
ed— 
(1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary of Defense’’ and 
inserting ‘‘(1) The Secretary of Defense’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph: 
‘‘(2) The Secretary of Defense may not delegate to 
an individual outside the Office of the Secretary of De-
fense the authority regarding the programming or budg-
eting of the program established by this section that is
carried out by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Re-
search and Engineering.’’. 
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Such section 2362 
is amended further— 
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘established 
under subsection (a)’’ and inserting ‘‘established by 
subsection (a)(1)’’; and 
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘subsection 
(a)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)(1)’’. 
SEC. 223. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR FU-
TURE UNMANNED CARRIER-BASED STRIKE 
SYSTEM. 
(a) LIMITATION.—Of the funds authorized to be ap-
propriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fis-
cal year 2012 for research, development, test, and evalua-
tion, Navy, for the Future Unmanned Carrier-based 
Strike System, not more than 15 percent may be obligated 
or expended until the date that is 60 days after the date 
on which— 
(1) the Chairman of the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council certifies to the congressional de-
fense committees that— 
(A) such system is required to fill a vali-
dated capability gap of the Department of De-
fense; and
(B) the Council has reviewed and approved 
the capability and development document relat-
ing to such system; 
(2) the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Re-
search, Development, and Acquisition submits to the 
congressional defense committees a report con-
taining— 
(A) a delineation of threshold and objective 
key performance parameters; 
(B) a certification that the threshold and 
objective key performance parameters for such 
system have been established and are achiev-
able; and 
(C) a description of the requirements of 
such system with respect to— 
(i) weapons payload; 
(ii) intelligence, reconnaissance, and 
surveillance equipment; 
(iii) electronic attack and electronic 
protection equipment; 
(iv) communications equipment; 
(v) range; 
(vi) mission endurance for un-refueled 
and aerial refueled operations; 
(vii) low-observability characteristics;
(viii) affordability; 
(ix) survivability; and 
(x) interoperability with other Navy 
and joint-service unmanned aerial systems 
and mission control stations; and 
(3) the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisi-
tion, Technology, and Logistics certifies to the con-
gressional defense committees that— 
(A) the Secretary of the Navy has com-
pleted a comprehensive analysis of alternatives 
for such system; 
(B) the acquisition strategy of the Sec-
retary for the engineering, manufacturing, de-
velopment, and fielding phases of such system 
is achievable and presents medium, or less, risk; 
(C) such acquisition strategy integrates a 
fair and open competitive acquisition strategy 
environment for all potential competitors; 
(D) the data, information, and lessons 
learned from the Unmanned Carrier-based Air-
craft System of the Navy are sufficiently inte-
grated into the acquisition strategy of the Fu-
ture Unmanned Carrier-based Strike System 
and that the level of concurrency between the 
programs is prudent and reasonable; and
(E) the Secretary has sufficient fiscal re-
sources budgeted in the future years defense 
plan and extended planning period that sup-
ports the acquisition strategy described in sub-
paragraph (B). 
(b) GAO BRIEFING.—Not later than 90 days after 
the date on which the certifications and report under sub-
section (a) are received by the congressional defense com-
mittees, the Comptroller General of the United States 
shall brief the congressional defense committees on an 
evaluation of the acquisition strategy of the Secretary of 
the Navy for the Future Unmanned Carrier-based Strike 
System. 
(c) FORM.—The report required by subsection (a)(2) 
shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include 
a classified annex. 
Subtitle C—Missile Defense 
Programs 
SEC. 231. ACQUISITION ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTS ON THE 
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM. 
(a) BASELINE REQUIRED.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 9 of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
224 the following new section:
‘‘§ 225. Acquisition accountability reports on the bal-
listic missile defense system 
‘‘(a) BASELINES REQUIRED.—(1) In accordance with 
paragraph (2), the Director of the Missile Defense Agency 
shall establish and maintain an acquisition baseline for— 
‘‘(A) each program element of the ballistic mis-
sile defense system, as specified in section 223 of 
this title; and 
‘‘(B) each designated major subprogram of 
such program elements. 
‘‘(2) The Director shall establish an acquisition base-
line required by paragraph (1) before the date on which 
the program element or major subprogram enters— 
‘‘(A) engineering and manufacturing develop-
ment; and 
‘‘(B) production and deployment. 
‘‘(3) Except as provided by subsection (d), the Direc-
tor may not adjust or revise an acquisition baseline estab-
lished under this section. 
‘‘(b) ELEMENTS OF BASELINES.—Each acquisition 
baseline required by subsection (a) for a program element 
or major subprogram shall include the following: 
‘‘(1) A comprehensive schedule, including— 
‘‘(A) research and development milestones; 
‘‘(B) acquisition milestones, including de-
sign reviews and key decision points;
‘‘(C) key test events, including ground and 
flight tests and ballistic missile defense system 
tests; 
‘‘(D) delivery and fielding schedules; 
‘‘(E) quantities of assets planned for ac-
quisition and delivery in total and by fiscal 
year; and 
‘‘(F) planned contract award dates. 
‘‘(2) A detailed technical description of— 
‘‘(A) the capability to be developed, includ-
ing hardware and software; 
‘‘(B) system requirements, including per-
formance requirements; 
‘‘(C) how the proposed capability satisfies 
a capability identified by the commanders of the 
combatant commands on a prioritized capabili-
ties list; 
‘‘(D) key knowledge points that must be 
achieved to permit continuation of the program 
and to inform production and deployment deci-
sions; and 
‘‘(E) how the Director plans to improve 
the capability over time. 
‘‘(3) A cost estimate, including—
‘‘(A) a life-cycle cost estimate that sepa-
rately identifies the costs regarding research 
and development, procurement, military con-
struction, operations and sustainment, and dis-
posal; 
‘‘(B) program acquisition unit costs for the 
program element; 
‘‘(C) average procurement unit costs and 
program acquisition costs for the program ele-
ment; and 
‘‘(D) an identification of when the docu-
ment regarding the program joint cost analysis 
requirements description is scheduled to be ap-
proved. 
‘‘(4) A test baseline summarizing the com-
prehensive test program for the program element or 
major subprogram outlined in the integrated master 
test plan. 
‘‘(c) ANNUAL REPORTS
ON ACQUISITION BASE-
LINES.—(1) Not later than February 15 of each year, the 
Director shall submit to the congressional defense commit-
tees a report on the acquisition baselines required by sub-
section (a).
‘‘(2)(A) The first report under paragraph (1) shall 
set forth each acquisition baseline required by subsection 
(a) for a program element or major subprogram. 
‘‘(B) Each subsequent report under paragraph (1) 
shall include— 
‘‘(i) any new acquisition baselines required by 
subsection (a) for a program element or major sub-
program; and 
‘‘(ii) with respect to an acquisition baseline that 
was previously included in a report under paragraph 
(1), an identification of any changes or variances 
made to the elements described in subsection (b) for 
such acquisition baseline, as compared to— 
‘‘(I) the initial acquisition baseline for such 
program element or major subprogram; and 
‘‘(II) the acquisition baseline for such pro-
gram element or major subprogram that was 
submitted in the report during the previous 
year. 
‘‘(3) Each report under this subsection shall be sub-
mitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
annex. 
‘‘(d) EXCEPTION TO LIMITATION ON REVISION.— 
The Director may adjust or revise an acquisition baseline
established under this section if the Director submits to 
the congressional defense committees notification of— 
‘‘(1) a justification for such adjustment or revi-
sion; 
‘‘(2) the specific adjustments or revisions made 
to the acquisition baseline, including to the elements 
described in subsection (b); and 
‘‘(3) the effective date of the adjusted or revised 
acquisition baseline.’’. 
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec-
tions at the beginning of such chapter is amended 
by adding at the end the following new item: 
‘‘225. Acquisition accountability reports on the ballistic missile defense system.’’. 
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 
(1) FISCAL YEAR 2011 NDAA.—Section 225 of 
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383; 124 
Stat. 4170; 10 U.S.C. 223 note) is repealed. 
(2) FISCAL YEAR 2008 NDAA.—Section 223 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 39; 10 
U.S.C. 223 note) is amended by striking subsection 
(g). 
(3) FISCAL YEAR 2003 NDAA.—Section 221 of 
the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314; 116 
Stat. 2484; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note) is repealed. 
SEC. 232. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 
MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM. 
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con-
gress that— 
(1) the United States should pursue options 
with respect to multilaterally terminating the con-
tract covering the medium extended air defense sys-
tem in order to lessen the contract termination li-
ability belonging to the United States; 
(2) the Secretary of Defense must now sustain 
the Patriot air and missile defense system longer 
than previously planned; 
(3) the Secretary of Defense should identify 
promising technologies from the medium extended 
air defense system, whether the technology origi-
nated in the United States or in a partner country, 
as soon as practicable and transition such tech-
nologies into a Patriot air and missile defense sys-
tem upgrade effort or other program of record; and 
(4) the Secretary of Defense should continue to 
pursue international cooperative missile defense ac-
tivities that are affordable and benefit the security 
of all parties.
(b) LIMITATION.—None of the funds authorized to 
be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available 
for fiscal year 2012 for the medium extended air defense 
system program may be obligated or expended until the 
date on which the Secretary of Defense— 
(1) either— 
(A) negotiates a multilateral termination 
with respect to the contract covering the pro-
gram; or 
(B) restructures such program and ensures 
that specific deliverables under such contract 
will be transitioned to one or more current pro-
grams of record by not later than September 
30, 2013; and 
(2) submits to the congressional defense com-
mittees written notification of— 
(A) the amount of the total cost for which 
the United States is liable with respect to ter-
minating the contract under paragraph (1)(A) 
or restructuring the program under paragraph 
(1)(B), as the case may be; 
(B) the terms of such contract termination 
or program restructuring;
(C) the program schedule and specific ele-
ments of the program to be delivered to the 
United States; 
(D) the specific technologies identified by 
the Secretary to be transitioned from the pro-
gram to one or more current programs of 
record, including the plans for such transition; 
and 
(E) how the Secretary plans to address the 
air and missile defense requirements of the De-
partment of Defense in the absence of a fielded 
medium extended air defense system capability, 
including a summary of activities, the cost esti-
mate, and the funding profile necessary to sus-
tain and upgrade the Patriot air and missile de-
fense system. 
SEC. 233. HOMELAND DEFENSE HEDGING POLICY AND 
STRATEGY. 
(a) POLICY.—It is the policy of the United States to 
develop and maintain a hedging strategy to provide for 
the protection of the homeland of the United States that— 
(1) provides such protection through the 
phased, adaptive approach to missile defense in Eu-
rope if—
(A) the intercontinental ballistic missile 
threat from the Middle East to the United 
States materializes earlier than 2020 (the year 
in which phase four of the phased, adaptive ap-
proach is planned to begin protecting the home-
land of the United States); or 
(B) technical challenges or schedule delays 
affect the availability of the standard missile–3 
block IIB interceptor planned for fielding in 
Europe by 2020 in order to protect the home-
land of the United States as part of such phase 
four; 
(2) provides such protection if the interconti-
nental ballistic missile threat from East Asia to the 
United States materializes more rapidly than ex-
pected; 
(3) provides capabilities that improve or en-
hance the protection of the United States beyond the 
ground-based midcourse defense capabilities cur-
rently deployed for the defense of the United States; 
and 
(4) includes plans for ensuring that such hedg-
ing capabilities described in paragraphs (1) through 
(3)—
(A) are suitable to perform the assigned 
mission; 
(B) are operationally effective; and 
(C) use technologies that are sufficiently 
matured and tested prior to fielding. 
(b) STRATEGY.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—In light of the policy de-
scribed in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense 
shall develop a hedging strategy to provide for the 
protection of the homeland of the United States. 
(2) ELEMENTS.—The strategy under paragraph 
(1) shall include the following: 
(A) A description of the hedging alter-
natives and capabilities considered by the Sec-
retary. 
(B) A summary of the analyses conducted, 
including— 
(i) criteria used to assess such options 
and capabilities; and 
(ii) the findings and recommendations 
of such analyses. 
(C) Detailed plans, programs, and a budg-
et profile for implementing the strategy through 
2022.
(D) The criteria to be used in determining 
when each item contained in the strategy 
should be implemented and the schedule re-
quired to implement each item. 
(E) Any other information the Secretary 
considers necessary. 
(3) SUBMISSION.—The Secretary shall submit 
to the congressional defense committees the strategy 
developed under paragraph (1) by the earlier of the 
following: 
(A) December 5, 2011. 
(B) The date on which the Secretary com-
pletes the development of such strategy. 
SEC. 234. GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SYSTEM. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 
(1) The last two intercept flight tests of the 
ground-based midcourse defense system in January 
2010 and December 2010 failed to intercept, and in 
January 2011, the Director of the Missile Defense 
Agency halted deliveries of completed exo-atmos-
pheric kill vehicles until the root cause of such fail-
ures is determined and resolved. 
(2) The ground-based midcourse defense system 
is currently the only missile defense system that pro-
tects the homeland of the United States from long- 
range ballistic missile threats. 
(3) In the fiscal year 2010 budget request, the 
ground-based midcourse defense system element was 
reduced by $524,600,000 from the fiscal year 2009 
level while the fiscal year 2011 budget request re-
stored $318,800,000 of this funding. 
(4) The fiscal year 2012 budget request further 
reduces the ground-based midcourse defense system 
element by $185,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 and 
further reduces such element by an additional 
$1,000,000,000 for the years covering the future- 
years defense program from the amount projected in 
the fiscal year 2011 budget request. 
(5) According to the Missile Defense Agency, 
the combination of the two flight-test failures and 
operating under the reduced spending limits of the 
Continuing Resolutions during fiscal year 2011 be-
fore the date on which the Department of Defense 
and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 
(Public Law 112–10) was enacted have resulted in 
the delay or restructuring of several activities within 
the ground-based midcourse defense system element, 
including—
(A) delays to ground-based interceptor 
manufacturing and fleet upgrades; 
(B) Stockpile Reliability Program compo-
nent testing; 
(C) new capability development, modeling, 
testing, and fielding; 
(D) Fort Greely missile defense complex 
communications upgrades; and 
(E) delays to flight testing of the two-stage 
ground-based interceptor. 
(6) According to the Missile Defense Agency 
and the United States Northern Command, the pro-
curement of additional ground-based interceptors 
will be necessary in light of the recent flight-test re-
sults. 
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con-
gress that the ground-based midcourse defense system is 
currently the only missile defense system that protects the 
homeland of the United States from long-range ballistic 
missile threats and therefore— 
(1) the system should be given sufficient 
prioritization and funding to ensure its long-term re-
liability, effectiveness, and ability to adapt to ad-
vances in such threats;
(2) the Director of the Missile Defense Agency 
should thoroughly identify the root cause associated 
with the exo-atmospheric kill vehicle that led to the 
flight-test failures described in subsection (a)(1) and 
identify other potential technical issues associated 
with the exo-atmospheric kill vehicle or ground-based 
midcourse defense system that have materialized in 
recent testing; 
(3) implementation of corrective measures and 
flight testing should be undertaken as soon as pos-
sible to provide commanders of the combatant com-
mands and the American people greater confidence 
in the reliability and effectiveness of the system; and 
(4) the procurement of additional ground-based 
interceptors will be necessary in light of recent 
flight-test results. 
(c) PLAN
AND CERTIFICATION REQUIRED.—Not 
later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, or on the date on which the Failure Review Board 
has completed the review of the ground-based midcourse 
defense system flight-test failures described in subsection 
(a)(1), whichever is later, the Secretary of Defense shall 
submit to the congressional defense committees the fol-
lowing:
(1) A plan by the Director of the Missile De-
fense Agency to address the flight-test failures, in-
cluding— 
(A) an identification of the root cause as-
sociated with the exo-atmospheric kill vehicle 
that led to the flight-test failures; 
(B) an identification of other potential 
technical issues associated with the exo-atmos-
pheric kill vehicle or ground-based midcourse 
defense system that have materialized in recent 
testing; 
(C) how the Director will resolve the issues 
identified in subparagraphs (A) and (B), includ-
ing a consideration of whether a re-designed 
exo-atmospheric kill vehicle is necessary; 
(D) a description of planned flight tests of 
the exo-atmospheric kill vehicle with any imple-
mented fixes; 
(E) a summary of the measures required 
by the Commander of the United States North-
ern Command based on the flight-test failures 
in order to meet operational requirements; and 
(F) the schedule and additional resources 
necessary to implement the plan.
(2) Written certification by the Secretary 
that— 
(A) the Director has thoroughly inves-
tigated the root cause of the flight-test failures 
and any other potential technical issues associ-
ated with the exo-atmospheric kill vehicle or 
ground-based midcourse defense system that 
have materialized in recent testing; 
(B) the plan under paragraph (1) is suffi-
cient to resolve the issues identified in subpara-
graphs (A) and (B) of such paragraph; 
(C) the schedule and additional resources 
described in subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) 
are sufficient to implement the plan under such 
paragraph; and 
(D) the Director has sufficiently prioritized 
the implementation of corrective measures and 
flight testing of the ground-based midcourse de-
fense system. 
SEC. 235. STUDY ON SPACE-BASED INTERCEPTOR TECH-
NOLOGY. 
(a) STUDY ON SPACE-BASED INTERCEPTOR TECH-
NOLOGY.— 
(1) STUDY.—Of the funds authorized to be ap-
propriated by this Act or otherwise made available
for fiscal year 2012 for ballistic missile defense tech-
nology, $8,000,000 shall be obligated or expended by 
the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study exam-
ining the technical and operational considerations 
associated with developing and operating a limited 
space-based interceptor capability and to submit the 
report under paragraph (2). At minimum, the study 
shall include— 
(A) the identification of the technical risks, 
gaps, and constraints associated with the devel-
opment and operation of such a capability; 
(B) an assessment of the maturity levels of 
various technologies needed to develop and op-
erate such a capability; 
(C) the key knowledge, research, and test-
ing that would be needed for any nation to de-
velop and operate an effective space-based in-
terceptor capability; and 
(D) the estimated effectiveness and cost of 
potential options for developing and operating 
such a capability, including their effectiveness 
in conjunction with existing and planned terres-
trially-based missile defense systems. 
(2) REPORT.—
(A) Not later than one year after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Defense shall submit to the congressional de-
fense committees a report on the study required 
under paragraph (1). 
(B) The report submitted under this para-
graph shall be in unclassified form, but may in-
clude a classified annex. 
(b) MERIT-BASED OR COMPETITIVE DECISIONS.— 
With respect to carrying out subsection (a), a decision to 
commit, obligate, or expend funds with or to a specific 
entity shall— 
(1) be based on merit-based selection proce-
dures in accordance with the requirements of sec-
tions 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States 
Code, or on competitive procedures; and 
(2) comply with other applicable provisions of 
law. 
Subtitle D—Reports 
SEC. 241. ANNUAL COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON 
THE KC–46A AIRCRAFT ACQUISITION PRO-
GRAM. 
(a) ANNUAL GAO REVIEW.—During the period be-
ginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and end-
ing on March 1, 2017, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall conduct an annual review of the KC– 
46A aircraft acquisition program. 
(b) ANNUAL REPORTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than March 1 of 
each year beginning in 2012 and ending in 2017, 
the Comptroller General shall submit to the congres-
sional defense committees a report on the review of 
the KC–46A aircraft acquisition program conducted 
under subsection (a). 
(2) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.—Each report 
on the review of the KC–46A aircraft acquisition 
program shall include the following: 
(A) The extent to which the program is 
meeting engineering, manufacturing, develop-
ment, and procurement cost, schedule, perform-
ance, and risk mitigation goals. 
(B) With respect to meeting the desired 
initial operational capability and full operational 
capability dates for the KC–46A aircraft, the 
progress and results of— 
(i) developmental and operational test-
ing of the aircraft; and 
(ii) plans for correcting deficiencies in 
aircraft performance, operational effective-
ness, reliability, suitability, and safety.
(C) An assessment of KC–46A aircraft 
procurement plans, production results, and ef-
forts to improve manufacturing efficiency and 
supplier performance. 
(D) An assessment of the acquisition strat-
egy of the KC–46A aircraft, including whether 
such strategy is in compliance with acquisition 
management best-practices and the acquisition 
policy and regulations of the Department of De-
fense. 
(E) A risk assessment of the integrated 
master schedule and the test and evaluation 
master plan of the KC–46A aircraft as it re-
lates to— 
(i) the probability of success; 
(ii) the funding required for such air-
craft compared with the funding budgeted; 
and 
(iii) development and production con-
currency. 
(3) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.—In submitting 
to the congressional defense committees the first re-
port under paragraph (1) and a report following any 
changes made by the Secretary of the Air Force to 
the baseline documentation of the KC–46A aircraft
acquisition program, the Comptroller General shall 
include, with respect to such program, an assess-
ment of the sufficiency and objectivity of— 
(A) the integrated baseline review docu-
ment; 
(B) the initial capabilities document; 
(C) the capabilities development document; 
and 
(D) the systems requirement document. 
SEC. 242. INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF 
CRYPTOGRAPHIC 
MODERNIZATION 
PRO-
GRAM. 
(a) INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT.—Not 
later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of Defense shall select an appropriate 
entity outside the Department of Defense to conduct an 
independent review and assessment of the cryptographic 
modernization program of the Department of Defense. 
(b) ELEMENTS.—The review and assessment re-
quired by subsection (a) shall include the following: 
(1) For each military department and appro-
priate defense agency, an analysis of the adequacy 
of the program management structure for executing 
the cryptographic modernization program, including
resources, personnel, requirements generation, and 
business process metrics. 
(2) An analysis of the ability of the program to 
deliver capabilities to the user community while com-
plying with the budget and schedule for the pro-
gram, including the programmatic risks that nega-
tively affect such compliance. 
(c) REPORT.— 
(1) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 120 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
entity conducting the review and assessment under 
subsection (a) shall submit to the Secretary and the 
congressional defense committees a report con-
taining— 
(A) the results of the review and assess-
ment; and 
(B) recommendations for improving the 
management of the cryptographic moderniza-
tion program. 
(2) FORM.—The report required by paragraph 
(1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may 
include a classified annex.
SEC. 243. REPORT ON FEASIBILITY OF ELECTROMAGNETIC 
RAIL GUN SYSTEM. 
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact-
ment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
to the congressional defense committees a report on the 
feasibility of developing and deploying the electromagnetic 
rail gun system to be used for either land- or ship-based 
force protection. 
Subtitle E—Other Matters 
SEC. 251. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR TECHNOLOGY 
TRANSITION INITIATIVE. 
(a) IN GENERAL.— 
(1) REPEAL.—Section 2359a of title 10, United 
States Code, is repealed. 
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec-
tions at the beginning of chapter 139 of such title 
is amended by striking the item relating to section 
2359a. 
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 
subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2012. 
SEC. 252. PRESERVATION AND STORAGE OF CERTAIN 
PROPERTY RELATED TO F136 PROPULSION 
SYSTEM. 
(a) PLAN.—The Secretary of Defense shall develop 
and carry out a plan for the preservation and storage of 
property owned by the Federal Government that was ac-
quired under the F136 propulsion system development 
contract. The plan shall— 
(1) ensure that the Secretary preserves and 
stores such property in a manner that— 
(A) allows the development of the F136 
propulsion system to be restarted after a period 
of idleness; 
(B) provides for the long-term sustainment 
and repair of such property; and 
(C) allows for such preservation and stor-
age to be conducted at either the facilities of 
the Federal Government or a contractor under 
such contract; 
(2) with respect to the supplier base of such 
property, identify the costs of restarting develop-
ment; 
(3) ensure that the Secretary, at no cost to the 
Federal Government, provides support and allows 
for the use of such property by the contractor under 
such contract to conduct research, development, test-
ing, and evaluation of the F136 engine, if such ac-
tivities are self-funded by the contractor; and 
(4) identify any contract modifications, addi-
tional facilities, or funding that the Secretary deter-
mines necessary to carry out the plan.
(b) PROHIBITION ON DISPOSING PROPERTY.—None 
of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by this Act 
or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2012 for re-
search, development, test, and evaluation, Navy, or re-
search, development, test, and evaluation, Air Force, for 
the F–35 Lightning II aircraft program may be obligated 
or expended for activities related to destroying or dis-
posing of the property described in subsection (a). 
(c) REPORT.—Not later than 45 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a re-
port on the plan under subsection (a). 
SEC. 253. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR MECHANISMS TO 
PROVIDE FUNDS FOR DEFENSE LABORA-
TORIES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR MILITARY MISSIONS. 
Section 219(c) of the Duncan Hunter National De-
fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (10 U.S.C. 
2358 note) is amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2013’’ and 
inserting ‘‘September 30, 2016’’. 
SEC. 254. APPLICATION OF RNA BIOLOGICAL AND FUNC-
TIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. 
In carrying out the medical advanced technology pro-
gram, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that, when 
applicable, RNA biological and functional science and
100 
technology are used for research in which RNA may be 
a translational tool and potentially therapeutic, includ-
ing— 
(1) infectious diseases employed by terrorists or 
other entities to have a battlefield effect; 
(2) memory disorders; 
(3) rare diseases; and 
(4) other diseases affecting military readiness. 
SEC. 255. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ACTIVE MATRIX OR-
GANIC 
LIGHT 
EMITTING 
DIODE 
TECH-
NOLOGY. 
It is the sense of Congress that— 
(1) active matrix organic light emitting diode 
(in this section referred to as ‘‘OLED’’) technology 
displays have the potential to reduce the size, 
weight, and energy consumption of both dismounted 
and mounted systems of the Armed Forces; 
(2) the United States has a limited OLED 
manufacturing industry; 
(3) to ensure a reliable domestic source of 
OLED displays, the Secretary of Defense should use 
existing programs, including the ManTech program, 
to support the reduction of the costs and risks re-
lated to OLED manufacturing technologies; and
101 
(4) the reduction of such costs and risks of 
OLED manufacturing has the potential to enable 
the affordable production and sustainment of future 
weapon systems, as well as the affordable transition 
of new technologies that can enhance capabilities of 
current force systems. 
SEC. 256. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR NEWLY DE-
SIGNED FLIGHT SUIT. 
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by 
this Act may be used to research, develop, manufacture, 
or procure a newly designed flight suit for members of 
the Armed Forces. 
SEC. 257. NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAM. 
If the total amount authorized to be appropriated by 
this Act for the National Defense Education Program for 
fiscal year 2012 is less than the amount requested by the 
President for such program in the budget submitted to 
Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United States 
Code, for such fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense may 
not derive the difference between such amounts from the 
K–12 component of such program.
102 
TITLE III—OPERATION AND 
MAINTENANCE 
Subtitle A—Authorization of 
Appropriations 
SEC. 301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING. 
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for 
fiscal year 2012 for the use of the Armed Forces and other 
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for 
expenses, not otherwise provided for, for operation and 
maintenance, as specified in the funding table in section 
4301. 
Subtitle B—Energy and 
Environmental Provisions 
SEC. 311. DESIGNATION OF SENIOR OFFICIAL OF JOINT 
CHIEFS OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONAL EN-
ERGY PLANS AND PROGRAMS AND OPER-
ATIONAL ENERGY BUDGET CERTIFICATION. 
Section 138c of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended— 
(1) in subsection (d)— 
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and 
(4) as paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively; and 
(B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the 
following new paragraph (3):
103 
‘‘(3) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall 
designate a senior official under the jurisdiction of the 
Chairman who shall be responsible for operational energy 
plans and programs for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the 
Joint Staff. The official so designated shall be responsible 
for coordinating with the Assistant Secretary and imple-
menting initiatives pursuant to the strategy with regard 
to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff.’’; and 
(2) in subsection (e)(4), by striking ‘‘10 days’’ 
and inserting ‘‘30 days’’. 
SEC. 312. MILITARY INSTALLATION IMPLEMENTATION OF 
LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS AND SUSTAIN-
ABILITY STUDIES. 
Section 2694(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, 
is amended— 
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘and, 
subject to the availability of appropriations, imple-
mentation by the military installation’’ after ‘‘devel-
opment’’; and 
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘and sus-
tainability’’ after ‘‘safety’’.
104 
SEC. 313. IMPROVED SIKES ACT COVERAGE OF STATE- 
OWNED 
FACILITIES 
USED 
FOR 
THE 
NA-
TIONAL DEFENSE. 
(a) IMPROVEMENTS TO ACT.—The Sikes Act (16 
U.S.C. 670 et seq.) is amended as follows: 
(1) DEFINITIONS.—Section 100 (16 U.S.C. 
670) is amended— 
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and 
(3) as paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively; and 
(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the 
following new paragraphs: 
‘‘(2) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means any of 
the several States, the District of Columbia, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Common-
wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American 
Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. 
‘‘(3) STATE-OWNED NATIONAL GUARD INSTAL-
LATION.—The term ‘State-owned National Guard 
installation’ means land owned and operated by a 
State when such land is used for training the Na-
tional Guard pursuant to chapter 5 of title 32, 
United State Code, with funds provided by the Sec-
retary of Defense or the Secretary of a military de-
partment, even though such land is not under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.’’.
105 
(2) FUNDING
OF
INTEGRATED
NATURAL
RE-
SOURCES
MANAGEMENT
PLANS.—Section 101 (16 
U.S.C. 670a) is amended— 
(A) in subsection (a)(1)(B)— 
(i) by inserting ‘‘(i)’’ before ‘‘To facili-
tate’’; and 
(ii) by adding at the end the following 
new clause: 
‘‘(ii) The Secretary of a military de-
partment may, subject to the availability of 
appropriations, develop and implement an 
integrated natural resources management 
plan for a State-owned National Guard in-
stallation. Such a plan shall be developed 
and implemented in coordination with the 
chief executive officer of the State in which 
the State-owned National Guard installa-
tion is located. Such a plan is deemed, for 
purposes of any other provision of law, to 
be for lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of 
Defense, or designated for its use.’’; 
(B) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ‘‘or 
State-owned National Guard installation’’ after 
‘‘military installation’’ both places it appears;
106 
(C) in subsection (a)(3)— 
(i) by redesignating subparagraphs 
(A), (B), and (C) as clauses (i), (ii), and 
(iii), respectively; 
(ii) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ before ‘‘Con-
sistent’’; 
(iii) in subparagraph (A), as des-
ignated by clause (ii) of this subparagraph, 
by inserting ‘‘and State-owned National 
Guard installations’’ after ‘‘military instal-
lations’’ the first place it appears; 
(iv) in clause (i) of subparagraph (A), 
as redesignated by clause (i) of this sub-
paragraph, by striking ‘‘military installa-
tions’’ and inserting ‘‘such installations’’; 
(v) in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A), 
as redesignated by clause (i) of this sub-
paragraph, by inserting ‘‘on such installa-
tions’’ after ‘‘resources’’; and 
(vi) by adding at the end the following 
subparagraph: 
‘‘(B) In the case of a State-owned National 
Guard installation, such program shall be car-
ried out in coordination with the chief executive
107 
officer of the State in which the installation is 
located.’’; 
(D) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘and 
State-owned National Guard installations’’ after 
‘‘military installations’’ the first place it ap-
pears; 
(E) in subparagraphs (G) and (I) of sub-
section (b)(1), by striking ‘‘military installa-
tion’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘in-
stallation’’; and 
(F) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting ‘‘, in 
the case of a military installation,’’ after ‘‘(3) 
may’’. 
(3) 
COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENTS.—Section 
103a(a) (16 U.S.C. 670c–1(a)) is amended— 
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Depart-
ment of Defense installations’’ and inserting 
‘‘military installations and State-owned Na-
tional Guard installations’’; and 
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Depart-
ment of Defense installation’’ and inserting 
‘‘military installation or State-owned National 
Guard installation’’. 
(b) SECTION AND SUBSECTION HEADINGS.—Such 
Act is further amended as follows:
108 
(1) Section 101 (16 U.S.C. 670a) is amended— 
(A) by inserting at the beginning the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘SEC. 101. COOPERATIVE PLAN FOR CONSERVATION AND 
REHABILITATION.’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘SEC. 101.’’; 
(C) in subsection (c), by inserting ‘‘PROHI-
BITIONS ON SALE AND LEASE OF LANDS UN-
LESS EFFECTS COMPATIBLE WITH PLAN.—’’ 
after ‘‘(c)’’; 
(D) in subsection (d), by inserting ‘‘IMPLE-
MENTATION
AND
ENFORCEMENT
OF
INTE-
GRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 
PLANS.—’’ after ‘‘(d)’’; 
(E) in subsection (e)— 
(i) by inserting ‘‘APPLICABILITY
OF 
OTHER LAWS’’ after ‘‘(e)’’; and 
(ii) by inserting a comma after 
‘‘Code’’. 
(2) Section 102 (16 U.S.C. 670b) is amended— 
(A) by inserting at the beginning the fol-
lowing:
109 
‘‘SEC. 102. MIGRATORY GAME BIRDS; HUNTING PERMITS.’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘SEC. 102.’’ and inserting 
‘‘(a) INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MAN-
AGEMENT PLAN.—’’; and 
(C) by striking ‘‘agency:’’ and all that fol-
lows through ‘‘possession’’ and inserting ‘‘agen-
cy. 
‘‘(b) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS.—Possession’’. 
(3) Section 103a (16 U.S.C. 670c–1) is further 
amended— 
(A) by inserting at the beginning the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘SEC. 103A. COOPERATIVE AND INTERAGENCY AGREE-
MENTS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT ON INSTAL-
LATIONS.’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘SEC. 103A.’’; 
(C) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘AU-
THORITY
OF SECRETARY
OF MILITARY DE-
PARTMENT.—’’ after ‘‘(a)’’; and 
(D) in subsection (c), by inserting ‘‘AVAIL-
ABILITY
OF
FUNDS; AGREEMENTS
UNDER 
OTHER LAWS.—’’ after ‘‘(c)’’. 
(4) Section 104 (16 U.S.C. 670d) is amended— 
(A) by inserting at the beginning the fol-
lowing:
110 
‘‘SEC. 104. LIABILITY FOR FUNDS; ACCOUNTING TO COMP-
TROLLER GENERAL.’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘SEC. 104.’’. 
(5) Section 105 (16 U.S.C. 670e) is amended— 
(A) by inserting at the beginning the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘SEC. 105. APPLICABILITY TO OTHER LAWS; NATIONAL 
FOREST LANDS.’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘SEC. 105.’’. 
(6) Section 108 (16 U.S.C. 670f) is amended— 
(A) by inserting at the beginning the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘SEC. 108. APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES.’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘SEC. 108.’’; 
(C) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘EX-
PENDITURES
OF COLLECTED FUNDS UNDER 
INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGE-
MENT PLANS.—’’ after ‘‘(a)’’; 
(D) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘AU-
THORIZATION
OF APPROPRIATIONS
TO SEC-
RETARY OF DEFENSE.—’’ after ‘‘(b)’’; 
(E) in subsection (c), by inserting ‘‘AU-
THORIZATION
OF APPROPRIATIONS
TO SEC-
RETARY OF THE INTERIOR.—’’ after ‘‘(c)’’; and
111 
(F) in subsection (D), by inserting ‘‘USE 
OF OTHER CONSERVATION
OR REHABILITA-
TION AUTHORITIES.—’’ after ‘‘(d)’’. 
(7) Section 201 (16 U.S.C. 670g) is amended— 
(A) by inserting at the beginning the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘SEC. 201. WILDLIFE, FISH, AND GAME CONSERVATION AND 
REHABILITATION PROGRAMS.’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘SEC. 201.’’; 
(C) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘PRO-
GRAMS REQUIRED.—’’ after ‘‘(a)’’; and 
(D) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘IMPLE-
MENTATION OF PROGRAMS.—’’ after ‘‘(b)’’. 
(8) Section 202 (16 U.S.C. 670h) is amended— 
(A) by inserting at the beginning the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘SEC. 202. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS FOR CONSERVATION 
AND REHABILITATION PROGRAMS.’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘SEC. 202.’’; 
(C) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘DE-
VELOPMENT OF PLANS.—’’ after ‘‘(a)’’; 
(D) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘CON-
SISTENCY WITH OVERALL LAND USE
AND 
MANAGEMENT PLANS; HUNTING, TRAPPING, 
AND FISHING.—’’ after ‘‘(b)’’;
112 
(E) in subsection (c), by inserting ‘‘COOP-
ERATIVE AGREEMENTS
BY STATE AGENCIES 
FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMS.—’’ after 
‘‘(c)’’; and 
(F) in subsection (d), by inserting ‘‘STATE 
AGENCY
AGREEMENTS
NOT
COOPERATIVE 
AGREEMENTS UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS.—’’ 
after ‘‘(d)’’. 
(9) Section 203 (16 U.S.C. 670i) is amended— 
(A) by inserting at the beginning the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘SEC. 203. PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT AREA STAMPS FOR 
HUNTING, TRAPPING, AND FISHING ON PUB-
LIC LANDS SUBJECT TO PROGRAMS.’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘SEC. 203.’’; 
(C) 
in 
subsection 
(a), 
by 
inserting 
‘‘AGREEMENTS TO REQUIRE STAMPS.—’’ after 
‘‘(a)’’; and 
(D) in subsection (b)— 
(i) by inserting ‘‘CONDITIONS
FOR 
AGREEMENTS.—’’ after ‘‘(b)’’; and 
(ii) by moving paragraph (3) 2 ems to 
the right, so that the left-hand margin 
aligns with that of paragraph (2).
113 
(10) Section 204 (16 U.S.C. 670j) is amend-
ed— 
(A) by inserting at the beginning the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘SEC. 204. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘SEC. 204.’’; 
(C) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘VIOLA-
TIONS AND PENALTIES.—’’ after ‘‘(a)’’; 
(D) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘EN-
FORCEMENT POWERS
AND PROCEEDINGS.—’’ 
after ‘‘(b)’’; and 
(E) in subsection (c), by inserting ‘‘SEI-
ZURE AND FORFEITURE.—’’ after ‘‘(c)’’; and 
(F) in subsection (d), by inserting ‘‘APPLI-
CABILITY OF CUSTOMS LAWS.—’’ after ‘‘(d)’’. 
(11) Section 205 (16 U.S.C. 670k) is amend-
ed— 
(A) by inserting at the beginning the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘SEC. 205. DEFINITIONS.’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘SEC. 205.’’. 
(12) Section 206 (16 U.S.C. 670l) is amend-
ed— 
(A) by inserting at the beginning the fol-
lowing:
114 
‘‘SEC. 206. STAMP REQUIREMENTS NOT APPLICABLE TO 
FOREST SERVICE AND BUREAU OF LAND 
MANAGEMENT LANDS; AUTHORIZED FEES.’’; 
and 
(B) by striking ‘‘SEC. 206.’’. 
(13) Section 207 (16 U.S.C. 670m) is amend-
ed— 
(A) by inserting at the beginning the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘SEC. 207. INDIAN RIGHTS; STATE OR FEDERAL JURISDIC-
TION REGULATING INDIAN RIGHTS.’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘SEC. 207.’’. 
(14) Section 209 (16 U.S.C. 670o) is amend-
ed— 
(A) by inserting at the beginning the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘SEC. 209. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘SEC. 209.’’; 
(C) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘FUNC-
TIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SECRETARY 
OF THE INTERIOR.—’’ after ‘‘(a)’’; 
(D) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘FUNC-
TIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SECRETARY 
OF AGRICULTURE.—’’ after ‘‘(b)’’;
115 
(E) in subsection (c), by inserting ‘‘USE 
OF OTHER CONSERVATION
OR REHABILITA-
TION AUTHORITIES’’ after ‘‘(c)’’; and 
(F) in subsection (d), by inserting ‘‘CON-
TRACT AUTHORITY’’ after ‘‘(d)’’. 
(c) CODIFICATION OF CHANGE OF NAME.—Section 
204(b) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 670j) is amended by strik-
ing ‘‘magistrate’’ both places it appears and inserting 
‘‘magistrate judge’’. 
(d) REPEAL OF OBSOLETE SECTION.—Section 208 
of such Act is repealed, and section 209 of such Act (16 
U.S.C. 670o) is redesignated as section 208. 
SEC. 314. DISCHARGE OF WASTES AT SEA GENERATED BY 
SHIPS OF THE ARMED FORCES. 
(a) DISCHARGE RESTRICTIONS FOR SHIPS OF THE 
ARMED FORCES.—Subsection (b) of section 3 of the Act 
to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1902(b)) is 
amended to read as follows: 
‘‘(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), this Act 
shall not apply to— 
‘‘(A) a ship of the Armed Forces described in 
paragraph (2); or 
‘‘(B) any other ship specifically excluded by the 
MARPOL Protocol or the Antarctic Protocol.
116 
‘‘(2) A ship described in this paragraph is a ship that 
is owned or operated by the Secretary, with respect to the 
Coast Guard, or by the Secretary of a military depart-
ment, and that, as determined by the Secretary con-
cerned— 
‘‘(A) has unique military design, construction, 
manning, or operating requirements; and 
‘‘(B) cannot fully comply with the discharge re-
quirements of Annex V to the Convention because 
compliance is not technologically feasible or would 
impair the operations or operational capability of the 
ship. 
‘‘(3)(A) Notwithstanding any provision of the 
MARPOL Protocol, the requirements of Annex V to the 
Convention shall apply to all ships referred to in sub-
section (a) other than those described in paragraph (2). 
‘‘(B) A ship that is described in paragraph (2) shall 
limit the discharge into the sea of garbage as follows: 
‘‘(i) The discharge into the sea of plastics, in-
cluding synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets, plas-
tic garbage bags, and incinerator ashes from plastic 
products that may contain toxic chemicals or heavy 
metals, or the residues thereof, is prohibited.
117 
‘‘(ii) Garbage consisting of the following mate-
rial may be discharged into the sea, subject to sub-
paragraph (C): 
‘‘(I) A non-floating slurry of seawater, 
paper, cardboard, or food waste that is capable 
of passing through a screen with openings no 
larger than 12 millimeters in diameter. 
‘‘(II) Metal and glass that have been 
shredded and bagged (in compliance with clause 
(i)) so as to ensure negative buoyancy. 
‘‘(III) With regard to a submersible, non-
plastic garbage that has been compacted and 
weighted to ensure negative buoyancy. 
‘‘(IV) Ash from incinerators or other ther-
mal destruction systems not containing toxic 
chemicals, heavy metals, or incompletely burned 
plastics. 
‘‘(C)(i) Garbage described in subparagraph (B)(ii)(I) 
may not be discharged within 3 nautical miles of land. 
‘‘(ii) Garbage described in subclauses (II), (III), and 
(IV) of subparagraph (B)(ii) may not be discharged within 
12 nautical miles of land. 
‘‘(D) Notwithstanding subparagraph (C), a ship de-
scribed in paragraph (2) that is not equipped with gar-
bage-processing equipment sufficient to meet the require-
118 
ments of subparagraph (B)(ii) may discharge garbage that 
has not been processed in accordance with subparagraph 
(B)(ii) if such discharge occurs as far as practicable from 
the nearest land, but in any case not less than— 
‘‘(i) 12 nautical miles from the nearest land, in 
the case of food wastes and non-floating garbage, in-
cluding paper products, cloth, glass, metal, bottles, 
crockery, and similar refuse; and 
‘‘(ii) 25 nautical miles from the nearest land, in 
the case of all other garbage. 
‘‘(E) This paragraph shall not apply when discharge 
of any garbage is necessary for the purpose of securing 
the safety of the ship, the health of the ship’s personnel, 
or saving life at sea. Not later than 270 days after such 
a discharge, the discharge shall be reported to the Sec-
retary, with respect to the Coast Guard, or the Secretary 
concerned. 
‘‘(F) This paragraph shall not apply during time of 
war or a national emergency declared by the President or 
Congress.’’. 
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 3(f) of the 
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1902(f)) 
is amended— 
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Annex V to 
the Convention on or before the dates referred to in
119 
subsections (b)(2)(A) and (c)(1)’’ and inserting 
‘‘subsection (b)’’; and 
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘and sub-
section (b)(3)(B)(i) of this section’’ after ‘‘Annex V 
to the Convention’’. 
SEC. 315. DESIGNATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EX-
ECUTIVE AGENT FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL DE-
VELOPMENT. 
(a) DESIGNATION OF EXECUTIVE AGENT.—The As-
sistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy, 
Plans, and Programs shall recommend, and the Secretary 
of Defense shall designate, the Secretary of one of the 
military departments to serve as the Executive Agent for 
Alternative Fuel Development for the Department of De-
fense. The Executive Agent shall— 
(1) lead the military departments in the devel-
opment of alternative fuel; 
(2) streamline the current investments of each 
of the military departments and ensure that such in-
vestments account for the requirements of the mili-
tary departments; 
(3) work jointly with the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Research and Engineering; 
(4) collaborate with and leverage investments 
made by the Department of Energy to advance al-
120 
ternative fuel development to the benefit of the De-
partment of Defense; and 
(5) coordinate proposed alternative fuel invest-
ments in accordance with section 138c(e) of title 10, 
United States Code. 
(b) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Operational Energy, Plans, and Programs 
shall prescribe policy for the Executive Agent, establish 
guidelines for streamlining alternative fuel investments 
across the Department of Defense, and certify the budget 
associated with such investments. 
(c) NOTIFICATION.—Not later than 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Defense shall submit to the congressional defense commit-
tees notification of the Secretary designated as the Execu-
tive Agent for Alternative Fuel Development for the De-
partment of Defense under subsection (a) and a copy of 
the policy prescribed under subsection (b). 
SEC. 316. FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF ENERGY-EFFI-
CIENT TECHNOLOGIES IN CONTRACTS FOR 
LOGISTICS SUPPORT OF CONTINGENCY OP-
ERATIONS. 
(a) FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION.—In evaluating of-
fers for defense logistics support contracts for contingency 
operations, the Secretary of Defense shall give favorable
121 
consideration, consistent with the energy performance 
goals and energy performance master plan for the Depart-
ment of Defense developed under section 2911 of title 10, 
United States Code, to offers that include energy-efficient 
or energy reduction technologies or processes meeting the 
requirements of subsection (b). 
(b) REQUIREMENTS
FOR ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES 
AND PROCESSES.—Favorable consideration shall be given 
to an offer for a defense logistics support contract under 
subsection (a) if any energy technology or process included 
in the offer meets the following criteria: 
(1) The technology or process achieves long- 
term savings for the Government by reducing overall 
demand for fuel and other sources of energy in con-
tingency operations. 
(2) The technology or process does not disrupt 
the mission, the logistics, or the core requirements 
in the contingency operation concerned. 
(3) The technology or process is able to inte-
grate seamlessly into the existing infrastructure in 
the contingency operation concerned. 
(c) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.— 
(1) LIFECYCLE COST SAVINGS REQUIRED TO BE 
DEMONSTRATED.—Favorable consideration may not 
be given under subsection (a) to an offer for a de-
122 
fense logistics support contract unless the offer con-
tains information demonstrating the total lifecycle 
cost savings achieved using the energy technology or 
process in the offer over traditional technologies. 
(2) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FACTORS.—The 
favorable consideration given under subsection (a) 
with respect to a defense logistics support contract 
does not outweigh other factors set forth by the se-
lection authority for the evaluation of the contract. 
(d) REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE.— 
(1) REGULATIONS.—The Defense Supplement 
to the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be re-
vised to implement this section. 
(2) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
of Defense shall issue comprehensive guidance on 
the implementation of this section. 
(e) REPORT.—The annual report required by section 
2925(b) of title 10, United States Code, shall include in-
formation on the progress in the implementation of this 
section, including savings achieved by the Department re-
sulting from such implementation. 
(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
(1) 
DEFENSE
LOGISTICS
SUPPORT
CON-
TRACT.—The term ‘‘defense logistics support con-
123 
tract’’ means a contract for services, or a task order 
under such a contract, awarded by the Department 
of Defense to provide logistics support during times 
of military mobilizations, including contingency oper-
ations, in any amount greater than the simplified ac-
quisition threshold. 
(2) 
CONTINGENCY
OPERATION.—The 
term 
‘‘contingency operation’’ has the meaning provided 
in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States 
Code. 
(g) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con-
gress that favorable consideration of energy-efficient or 
energy reduction technologies or processes under this sec-
tion should include a focus on alternative, self-sufficient 
energy sources that reduce costs in the long term. 
SEC. 317. HEALTH ASSESSMENT REPORTS REQUIRED WHEN 
WASTE IS DISPOSED OF IN OPEN-AIR BURN 
PITS. 
Section 317 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 
2250; 10 U.S.C. 2701 note) is amended— 
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub-
section (d); and 
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol-
lowing new subsection (c):
124 
‘‘(c) HEALTH ASSESSMENT REPORTS.—Not later 
than 180 days after notice is due under subsection (a)(2), 
the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a 
health assessment report on each open-air burn pit at a 
location where at least 100 personnel have been employed 
for 90 consecutive days or more. Each such report shall 
include each of the following: 
‘‘(1) An epidemiological description of the 
short-term and long-term health risks posed to per-
sonnel in the area where the burn pit is located be-
cause of exposure to the open-air burn pit. 
‘‘(2) A copy of the methodology used to deter-
mine the health risks described in paragraph (1). 
‘‘(3) A copy of the assessment of the oper-
ational risks and health risks when making the de-
termination pursuant to subsection (a) that no alter-
native disposal method is feasible for the open-air 
burn pit.’’. 
SEC. 318. FIRE SUPPRESSION AGENTS. 
Section 605(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
7671d(a)) is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph 
(2);
125 
(2) by striking the period at the end of para-
graph (3) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 
(3) by adding the following new paragraph after 
paragraph (3): 
‘‘(4) is listed as acceptable for use as a fire sup-
pression agent for nonresidential applications in ac-
cordance with section 612(c).’’. 
Subtitle C—Logistics and 
Sustainment 
SEC. 321. DEFINITION OF DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE 
AND REPAIR. 
Section 2460 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows: 
‘‘§ 2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and re-
pair 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In this chapter, the term ‘‘depot- 
level maintenance and repair’’ means (except as provided 
in subsection (b)) the processes of material maintenance 
or repair involving the overhaul, upgrading, rebuilding, 
testing, inspection, and reclamation (as necessary) of 
weapon systems, equipment end items, parts, components, 
assemblies, and subassemblies. The term includes— 
‘‘(1) all aspects of software maintenance; 
‘‘(2) the installation of parts or components for 
modifications; and
126 
‘‘(3) associated technical assistance to inter-
mediate 
maintenance 
organizations, 
operational 
units, and other activities. 
‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—The term does not include the nu-
clear refueling of an aircraft carrier.’’. 
SEC. 322. CORE LOGISTICS CAPABILITIES. 
(a) MODIFICATIONS TO CORE LOGISTICS CAPABILI-
TIES REQUIREMENTS.—Section 2464 of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a)— 
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘systems 
and equipment under special access programs, 
nuclear aircraft carriers,’’ and inserting ‘‘the 
nuclear refueling of an aircraft carrier’’; and 
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘facili-
ties’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘in-
dustrial facilities’’; 
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as 
subsections (c) and (d), respectively; 
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol-
lowing new subsection (b): 
‘‘(b) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after 
the date on which the budget of the President for a fiscal 
year is submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 
of title 31, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Con-
127 
gress a report identifying, for each of the armed forces 
(other than the Coast Guard) each of the following: 
‘‘(1) The core logistics capability requirements 
identified in subsection (a)(2). 
‘‘(2) The depot maintenance workloads required 
to cost-effectively support core logistics capability re-
quirements. 
‘‘(3) The additional depot maintenance work-
loads, beyond the workloads identified under para-
graph (2), needed to ensure that not more than 50 
percent of the non-exempt depot maintenance fund-
ing is expended for performance by non-federal gov-
ernmental personnel in accordance with section 2466 
of this title. 
‘‘(4) The allocation of workload for each Center 
of Industrial and Technical Excellence as designated 
in accordance with section 2474 of this title. 
‘‘(5) The depot maintenance capital investments 
required to be made in order to ensure compliance 
with subsection (a) by not later than four years after 
achieving initial operational capacity.’’; and 
(4) by adding at the end the following new sub-
section: 
‘‘(e) INDUSTRIAL FACILITY DEFINED.—In this sec-
tion, the term ‘industrial facility’ includes government-
128 
owned ammunition plants, arsenals, depots, and manufac-
turing plants and facilities designated for the purpose of 
conducting depot-level maintenance and repair.’’. 
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 
subsection (a)(1) shall apply with respect to contracts en-
tered into after the date of the enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 323. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INDUSTRIAL FACILI-
TIES AS CENTERS OF INDUSTRIAL AND TECH-
NICAL EXCELLENCE. 
Section 2474(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, 
is amended by inserting ‘‘or military industrial facility’’ 
after ‘‘depot-level activity’’. 
SEC. 324. REDESIGNATION OF CORE COMPETENCIES AS 
CORE LOGISTICS CAPABILITIES FOR CEN-
TERS OF INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNICAL EX-
CELLENCE. 
Section 2474 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘core competencies’’ each place 
it appears and inserting ‘‘core logistics capabilities’’; 
and 
(2) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ‘‘core com-
petency’’ and inserting ‘‘core logistics capability’’.
129 
SEC. 325. PERMANENT AND EXPANDED AUTHORITY FOR 
ARMY INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES TO ENTER 
INTO 
CERTAIN 
COOPERATIVE 
ARRANGE-
MENTS WITH NON-ARMY ENTITIES. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4544 of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a), by striking the second 
sentence; and 
(2) by striking subsection (k). 
(b) REPORT.—Section 328(b)(A) of the National De-
fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 
110–181; 122 Stat. 66; 10 U.S.C. 4544 note) is amended 
by striking ‘‘the advisability’’ and all that follows through 
the end and inserting ‘‘the effect of the use of such author-
ity on the rates charged by each Army industrial facility 
when bidding on contracts for the Army or for a Defense 
agency and providing recommendations to improve the 
ability of each category of Army industrial facility (as de-
fined in section 4544(j) of title 10, United States Code) 
to compete for such contracts;’’. 
SEC. 326. AMENDMENT TO REQUIREMENT RELATING TO 
CONSIDERATION 
OF 
COMPETITION 
THROUGHOUT 
OPERATION 
AND 
SUSTAINMENT OF MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEMS. 
Section 202(d) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition 
Reform Act of 2009 (10 U.S.C. 2430 note) is amended
130 
by inserting after ‘‘major weapon system’’ the following: 
‘‘or a subsystem or component of a major weapon sys-
tem’’. 
SEC. 327. IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS RE-
SULTING FROM CORROSION STUDY OF THE 
F–22 AND F–35 AIRCRAFT. 
(a) IMPLEMENTATION; CONGRESSIONAL
BRIEF-
ING.—Not later than January 31, 2012, the Under Sec-
retary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logis-
tics shall implement the recommended actions described 
in subsection (b) and provide to the congressional defense 
committees a briefing on the actions taken by the Under 
Secretary to implement such recommended actions. 
(b) RECOMMENDED ACTIONS.—The recommended 
actions described in this subsection are the following four 
recommended actions included in the report of the Govern-
ment Accountability Office report numbered GAO–11– 
117R and titled ‘‘Defense Management: DOD Needs to 
Monitor and Assess Corrective Actions Resulting from Its 
Corrosion Study of the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter’’: 
(1) The documentation of program-specific rec-
ommendations made as a result of the corrosion 
study described in subsection (d) with regard to the 
F–35 and F–22 aircraft and the establishment of a 
process for monitoring and assessing the effective-
131 
ness of the corrective actions taken with respect to 
such aircraft in response to such recommendations. 
(2) The documentation of program-specific rec-
ommendations made as a result of such corrosion 
study with regard to the other weapon systems iden-
tified in the study, specifically the CH–53K heli-
copter, the Joint High Speed Vessel, the Broad Area 
Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System, 
and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, and the estab-
lishment of a process for monitoring and assessing 
the effectiveness of the corrosion prevention and con-
trol programs implemented for such weapons sys-
tems in response to such recommendations. 
(3) The documentation of Air Force-specific 
and Navy-specific recommendations made as a result 
of such corrosion study and the establishment of a 
process for monitoring and assessing the effective-
ness of the corrective actions taken by the Air Force 
and the Navy in response to such recommendations. 
(4) The documentation of Department of De-
fense-wide recommendations made as a result of 
such corrosion study, the implementation of any 
needed changes in policies and practices to improve 
corrosion prevention and control in new systems ac-
quired by the Department, and the establishment of
132 
a process for monitoring and assessing the effective-
ness of the corrective actions taken by the Depart-
ment in response to such recommendations. 
(c) DEADLINE FOR COMPLIANCE.—Not later than 
December 31, 2012, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in conjunction 
with the directors of the F–35 and F–22 program offices, 
the directors of the program offices for the weapons sys-
tems referred to in subsection (b)(2), the Secretary of the 
Army, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Secretary 
of the Navy, shall— 
(1) take whatever steps necessary to comply 
with the recommendations documented pursuant to 
the required implementation under subsection (a) of 
the recommended actions described in subsection 
(b); or 
(2) submit to the congressional defense commit-
tees written justification of why compliance was not 
feasible or achieved. 
(d) CORROSION STUDY.—The corrosion study de-
scribed in this subsection is the study required in House 
Report 111–166 accompanying H.R. 2647 of the 111th 
Congress conducted by the Office of the Director of Corro-
sion Policy and Oversight of the Office of the Secretary
133 
of Defense and titled ‘‘Corrosion Evaluation of the F–22 
Raptor and F–35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter’’. 
SEC. 328. MODIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO 
MINIMUM CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR CER-
TAIN DEPOTS. 
Section 2476 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended— 
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘mainte-
nance, repair, and overhaul’’ after ‘‘combined’’; 
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘facilities,’’ 
before ‘‘infrastructure’’; 
(3) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the 
following new subparagraph: 
‘‘(E) A table showing the funded workload per-
formed by each covered depot for the preceding 
three fiscal years and actual investment funds allo-
cated to each depot for the period covered by the re-
port.’’; and 
(4) in subsection (e)(1), by adding at the end 
the following new subparagraph: 
‘‘(I) Tooele Army Depot, Utah.’’.
134 
Subtitle D—Readiness 
SEC. 331. MODIFICATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT VOLUNTARY CON-
TRIBUTIONS OF FUNDS. 
The second sentence of subsection (g) of section 358 
of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383; 124 Stat. 4201; 
49 U.S.C. 44718 note) is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘shall be available’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘shall remain available until expended’’; and 
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
following: ‘‘or to conduct studies of potential meas-
ures to mitigate such impacts’’. 
SEC. 332. REVIEW OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES AFFECTING 
NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE. 
Section 44718 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new sub-
section: 
‘‘(e) REVIEW OF AERONAUTICAL STUDIES.—The Ad-
ministrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
develop procedures to allow the Department of Defense 
and the Department of Homeland Security to review and 
comment on an aeronautical study conducted pursuant to 
subsection (b) prior to the completion of the study.’’.
135 
SEC. 333. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING INTEGRATION 
OF BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TRAINING 
ACROSS AND BETWEEN COMBATANT COM-
MANDS AND MILITARY SERVICES. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that ballistic missile 
defense is an inherently joint operation that requires close 
coordination between combatant commands and military 
services at all levels, from the strategic to the operational 
to the tactical. Since the time available to identify, track, 
and intercept ballistic missiles will be less than 30 min-
utes, joint training to improve the ability of the military 
departments and combatant commands to work together 
is essential for successfully planning and conducting bal-
listic missile defense operations. Congress has previously 
expressed concern that gaps in joint missile defense train-
ing, from the lowest sensor or shooter operator level to 
the highest levels of decision-making on combatant com-
mand staffs, must be identified and rectified. 
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con-
gress that— 
(1) improving the integration of ballistic missile 
defense training across and between combatant com-
mands and military services and fully identifying the 
training requirements, capabilities, and resources 
that the Department of Defense needs to effectively 
train for this complex mission is vital to the protec-
136 
tion of the United States against ballistic missile at-
tacks; 
(2) identifying and addressing training gaps in 
integrating missile defense training is essential for 
successfully employing the Ballistic Missile Defense 
System; and 
(3) identifying the capabilities and funding 
needed to effectively and adequately integrate train-
ing across and between the combatant commands 
and military services is important to ensure that 
training priorities are being met and that resources 
are aligned to support the training. 
Subtitle E—Reports 
SEC. 341. ANNUAL CERTIFICATION AND MODIFICATIONS OF 
ANNUAL REPORT ON PREPOSITIONED MATE-
RIEL AND EQUIPMENT. 
(a) ANNUAL CERTIFICATION.—Section 2229 of title 
10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection: 
‘‘(d) ANNUAL CERTIFICATION.—(1) Not later than 
the date of the submission of the President’s budget re-
quest for a fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31, the 
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional de-
fense committees certification in writing that the 
prepositioned stocks of each of the military departments
137 
meet all operations plans, in both fill and readiness, that 
are in effect as of the date of the submission of the certifi-
cation. 
‘‘(2) If, for any year, the Secretary cannot certify 
that any of the prepositioned stocks meet such operations 
plans, the Secretary shall include with the certification for 
that year a list of the operations plans affected, a descrip-
tion of any measures that have been taken to mitigate any 
risk associated with prepositioned stock shortfalls, and an 
anticipated timeframe for the replenishment of the stocks. 
‘‘(3) A certification under this subsection shall be in 
an unclassified form but may have a classified annex.’’. 
(b) ANNUAL REPORT.—Section 2229a(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new paragraphs: 
‘‘(7) A list of any non-standard items slated for 
inclusion in the prepositioned stocks and a plan for 
funding the inclusion and sustainment of such items. 
‘‘(8) A list of any equipment used in support of 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, or 
Operation Enduring Freedom slated for retrograde 
and subsequent inclusion in the prepositioned stocks. 
‘‘(9) An efficiency strategy for limited shelf-life 
medical stock replacement.
138 
‘‘(10) The status of efforts to develop a joint 
strategy, integrate service requirements, and elimi-
nate redundancies. 
‘‘(11) The operational planning assumptions 
used in the formulation of prepositioned stock levels 
and composition. 
‘‘(12) A list of any strategic plans affected by 
changes to the levels, composition, or locations of the 
prepositioned stocks and a description of any action 
taken to mitigate any risk that such changes may 
create.’’. 
SEC. 342. MODIFICATION OF REPORT ON MAINTENANCE 
AND REPAIR OF VESSELS IN FOREIGN SHIP-
YARDS. 
Section 7310(c) of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended— 
(1) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting after 
‘‘justification under law’’ the following: ‘‘and oper-
ational justification’’; and 
(2) in paragraph (4), by adding at the end the 
following new subparagraph: 
‘‘(C) A vessel not described in subparagraph 
(A) or (B) that is operated pursuant to a contract 
entered into by the Military Sealift Command, the
139 
Maritime Administration, or the United States 
Transportation Command.’’. 
SEC. 343. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNUAL RE-
PORT ON MILITARY WORKING DOGS. 
Section 358(c) of the Duncan Hunter National De-
fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 
110–417; 122 Stat. 4427; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note) is amend-
ed— 
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 
striking ‘‘for the fiscal year covered by the report’’; 
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘The number’’ 
and inserting ‘‘For the fiscal year covered by the re-
port, the number’’; 
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘The cost’’ 
and inserting ‘‘For such fiscal year’’; 
(4) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘during such 
fiscal year’’ before the period at the end; and 
(5) by adding at the end the following new 
paragraphs: 
‘‘(4) For such fiscal year, the number of mili-
tary working dogs providing services under a con-
tract for each military department or Defense Agen-
cy.
140 
‘‘(5) For such fiscal year, the number of mili-
tary working dogs bred by each military department 
or Defense Agency. 
‘‘(6) An evaluation of military working dog 
breeding programs that addresses— 
‘‘(A) the cost of acquiring dogs through 
such breeding programs compared to the cost of 
purchasing the dogs; 
‘‘(B) a plan for how the Department could 
better leverage existing departmental and non- 
departmental domestic breeding programs; and 
‘‘(C) other considerations as determined 
appropriate by the Secretary. 
‘‘(7) The future force structure requirements 
for the military working dog program.’’. 
SEC. 344. ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 
REGARDING THE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE 
WITH JOINT MILITARY TRAINING AND FORCE 
ALLOCATIONS. 
(a) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.—At the beginning of 
each even-numbered year, the Secretary of Defense shall 
conduct an assessment of joint military training and force 
allocations to determine— 
(1) the compliance of the military departments 
with the joint training, doctrine, and resource alloca-
141 
tion recommendations promulgated by the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff; and 
(2) the effectiveness of the Joint Staff in car-
rying out the missions of planning and experimen-
tation formerly accomplished by Joint Forces Com-
mand. 
(b) RELATION TO NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY 
ASSESSMENTS.—The assessments required by this section 
are in addition to the assessments of the National Military 
Strategy conducted by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff under section 153(b) of title 10, United States 
Code. 
(c) REPORTS ON RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT.—Not 
later than March 31, 2012, and March 31 of each even- 
numbered year thereafter, the Secretary of Defense shall 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
containing the results of the most recently concluded as-
sessment conducted under subsection (a). 
SEC. 345. STUDY OF UNITED STATES PACIFIC COMMAND 
TRAINING READINESS. 
(a) STUDY REQUIRED.—In fulfillment of the rec-
ommendations in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, 
the Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Com-
mander of the United States Pacific Command, shall con-
duct a study to identify current and future training re-
142 
quirements for all members of the Armed Forces assigned 
to the Pacific Command area of responsibility, the suffi-
ciency of current training infrastructure to meet those re-
quirements, and the effect on operational readiness of pro-
viding additional training venues. 
(b) TRAINING LOCATIONS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the study re-
quired under subsection (a), the Secretary of De-
fense and the Commander of the United States Pa-
cific Command shall identify locations within the 
United States Pacific Command’s area of responsi-
bility as suitable to establish combat training centers 
to fulfill requirements for live-fire and simulated in-
dividual, small-unit, and collective pre-deployment 
and post-deployment training of United States com-
bat forces in joint, multi-national, and coalition full- 
spectrum operations as well as counterinsurgency, 
stability, and humanitarian operations. 
(2) SUITABILITY FOR TRAINING.—The locations 
identified by the Secretary and the Commander of 
the United States Pacific Command pursuant to 
paragraph (1) shall be suitable for training forces 
equivalent to a Marine Expeditionary Force, an 
Army division, an Air and Space Expeditionary 
Force, or a Navy carrier strike group.
143 
(3) LOCATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In iden-
tifying locations to be studied pursuant to paragraph 
(1), the Secretary and the Commander of the United 
States Pacific Command may consider, among oth-
ers, current as well as former United States military 
installations. 
(c) STUDY REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out the 
study required under subsection (a), the Secretary and the 
Commander of the United States Pacific Command 
shall— 
(1) determine cost estimates for any necessary 
acquisition, development (including military con-
struction), operation, and maintenance of the loca-
tions identified under subsection (b); 
(2) determine the estimated cost to upgrade 
any current infrastructure at any location identified 
to bring the location to a state required for the 
training described in subsection (b); 
(3) provide a description of the possible envi-
ronmental impact of conducting the training de-
scribed in subsection (b); 
(4) include an estimate of the potential eco-
nomic impact, either positive or negative, to the local 
community of accommodating the training described 
in subsection (b); and
144 
(5) provide a description of the anticipated im-
pact on the quality of life for military personnel who 
would train at the identified locations. 
(d) ASSESSMENT OF READINESS IMPACT.—The Sec-
retary and the Commander of the United States Pacific 
Command shall include in the study required under this 
section an assessment of the effect on operational and 
training readiness that would be achieved by providing 
training at the training locations identified under sub-
section (b). 
(e) REPORT.—Not later than February 28, 2013, the 
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
on Armed Services of the Senate a report that contains 
the results of the study required under this section along 
with any conclusions and recommendations of the Sec-
retary and the Commander of the United States Pacific 
Command regarding the activation and implementation of 
training sites in the Pacific Command area of responsi-
bility. 
(f) COMPTROLLER GENERAL BRIEFING.—Not later 
than 120 days after the submittal of the report under sub-
section (e), the Comptroller General of the United States 
shall provide to the Committee on Armed Services of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed
145 
Services of the Senate a briefing on the completeness of 
the Secretary’s report in fulfilling the requirements of this 
section and the feasibility of successfully establishing addi-
tional training opportunities based on the recommenda-
tions included in the report. 
SEC. 346. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FOR INCLUSION IN AN-
NUAL REPORT ON OPERATIONAL ENERGY. 
Section 2925(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, 
is amended— 
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as sub-
paragraph (F); and 
(2) by adding at the end the following new sub-
paragraph: 
‘‘(E) An evaluation of practices used in contin-
gency operations during the previous fiscal year and 
potential improvements to such practices to reduce 
vulnerabilities associated with fuel convoys, including 
improvements in tent and structure efficiency, im-
provements in generator efficiency, and displacement 
of liquid fuels with on-site renewable energy genera-
tion. Such evaluation should identify challenges asso-
ciated with the deployment of more efficient struc-
tures and equipment and renewable energy genera-
tion, and recommendations for overcoming such 
challenges.’’.
146 
Subtitle F—Limitations and 
Extensions of Authority 
SEC. 351. ADOPTION OF MILITARY WORKING DOG BY FAM-
ILY OF DECEASED OR SERIOUSLY WOUNDED 
MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO WAS 
THE DOG’S HANDLER. 
Section 2583(c) of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended— 
(1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘Military ani-
mals’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph: 
‘‘(2) For purposes of making a determination under 
subsection (a)(2), unusual or extraordinary circumstances 
may include situations in which the handler of a military 
working dog is killed in action, dies of wounds received 
in action, or is so seriously wounded in action that the 
member will (or most likely will) receive a medical dis-
charge. If the Secretary of the military department con-
cerned determines that an adoption is justified in such a 
situation, the military working dog shall be made available 
for adoption only by the immediate family of the mem-
ber.’’.
147 
SEC. 352. PROHIBITION ON EXPANSION OF THE AIR FORCE 
FOOD TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE. 
The Secretary of the Air Force may not expand the 
Air Force food transformation initiative (hereinafter re-
ferred to as the ‘‘initiative’’) to include any base other 
than the six bases initially included in the pilot program 
until 270 days after the date on which the Secretary of 
the Air Force submits to the Committees on Armed Serv-
ices of the Senate and House of Representatives a report 
on the initiative. Such report shall include the following: 
(1) A description of the effects of the initiative 
on all employees who are paid through non-
appropriated funds. 
(2) A detailed plan for any new information 
technology systems, along with a funding plan, that 
may be required to fully implement the initiative. 
(3) A description of the performance metrics 
developed to objectively measure the initiative at the 
six bases participating in the initiative as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act. 
(4) An explanation of how appropriated and 
non-appropriated funds used in the initiative are 
being tracked to ensure that such funds remain seg-
regated.
148 
(5) An estimate of the cost savings and effi-
ciencies associated with the initiative, and an expla-
nation of how such savings are achieved. 
(6) The rationale for any increases in food 
prices at both the appropriated facilities on the mili-
tary bases participating in the initiative as of the 
date of the enactment of this Act and the non-appro-
priated funded facilities on such bases. 
(7) An explanation of any challenges or barriers 
encountered at such bases and a plan for addressing 
those challenges or barriers to implementation. 
(8) A description of the training programs 
being developed to assist the transition for all em-
ployees affected by the initiative. 
(9) A detailed plan for addressing any rec-
ommendations made by the Comptroller General of 
the United States following the Comptroller Gen-
eral’s review of the initiative. 
SEC. 353. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION AND EXPENDITURE 
OF FUNDS FOR THE MIGRATION OF ARMY EN-
TERPRISE EMAIL SERVICES. 
Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this 
Act or otherwise made available to the Department of De-
fense for fiscal year 2012 for procurement or operation 
and maintenance for the migration to enterprise email
149 
services by the Department of the Army, not more than 
2 percent may be obligated or expended until the date that 
is 30 days after the date on which the Secretary of Army 
submits to the congressional defense committees a report 
that includes a comparison of the relative merits of 
transitioning to Defense Information Systems Agency en-
terprise email services and Army Knowledge Online. The 
report shall address each of the following: 
(1) The original business case analysis sup-
porting the decision to transition to Defense Infor-
mation Systems Agency enterprise email services. 
(2) An analysis of alternatives to the decision 
that were considered. 
(3) The proposed formal acquisition oversight 
body and process with respect to the transition. 
(4) An economic analysis (including a life-cycle 
cost analysis) of the proposed transition, including a 
cost-benefit analysis and assessment of sustainment 
costs. 
SEC. 354. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM FOR 
AVAILABILITY OF WORKING-CAPITAL FUNDS 
TO ARMY FOR CERTAIN PRODUCT IMPROVE-
MENTS. 
Section 330(f) of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat.
150 
68) is amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2013’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘October 1, 2014’’. 
SEC. 355. MODIFICATION OF REPORT ON SEAD/DEAD MIS-
SION REQUIREMENTS OF THE AIR FORCE. 
Section 334 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Au-
thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111– 
383; 124 Stat. 4188) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a)— 
(A) by striking ‘‘120 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘Au-
gust 1, 2011’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘designating’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘expanding the role of the Air National 
Guard in conducting’’; and 
(C) by striking ‘‘as a responsibility of the 
Air National Guard’’; and 
(2) in subsection (b)(2), by adding at the end 
the following: 
‘‘(D) The capacity and capability of the 
Air National Guard to assume an increased 
level of the Department’s SEAD/DEAD mission 
responsibilities.’’.
151 
SEC. 356. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION AND EXPENDITURE 
OF FUNDS FOR MIGRATION OF MANAGEMENT 
OF AIR FORCE ENTERPRISE LOGISTICS SYS-
TEMS PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICE PEND-
ING COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS. 
Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this 
Act or otherwise made available to the Department of De-
fense for fiscal year 2012 for procurement or operation 
and maintenance for the migration to management for the 
Enterprise Logistics System Program Executive Office by 
the Department of the Air Force, not more than 10 per-
cent may be obligated or expended until the date that is 
30 days after the date on which the Secretary of Air Force 
submits to the congressional defense committees a report 
on the cost-benefit analysis of migrating the management 
headquarters for the Enterprise Logistics System Pro-
gram Executive Office. The report shall address each of 
the following: 
(1) The business case analysis supporting the 
decision. 
(2) An analysis of alternatives to the decision 
that were considered. 
(3) An economic analysis (including a life-cycle 
cost analysis) of the proposed transition, including a 
cost-benefit analysis and assessment of sustainment 
costs.
152 
Subtitle G—Other Matters 
SEC. 
361. 
CONSIDERATION 
OF 
FORECLOSURE 
CIR-
CUMSTANCES IN ADJUDICATION OF SECU-
RITY CLEARANCES. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 80 of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1564a 
the following new section: 
‘‘§ 1564b. Security clearance adjudications 
‘‘In carrying out a security clearance adjudication of 
a member of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense 
shall give special consideration to any such member with 
a record of a foreclosure on the credit report of such mem-
ber.’’. 
(b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary 
shall issue regulations to carry out section 1564b of title 
10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a). 
(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 
at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 1564a the following new 
item: 
‘‘1564b. Security clearance adjudications.’’.
153 
SEC. 362. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION FOR 
MARITIME SAFETY OF FORCES AND HYDRO-
GRAPHIC SUPPORT. 
(a) AUTHORITY.—Part IV of subtitle C of title 10, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new chapter: 
‘‘CHAPTER 669—MARITIME SAFETY OF 
FORCES 
‘‘Sec. 
‘‘7921. Safety and effectiveness information; hydrographic information. 
‘‘§ 7921. Safety and effectiveness information; hydro-
graphic information 
‘‘(a) SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS INFORMATION.— 
(1) The Secretary of the Navy shall maximize the safety 
and effectiveness of all maritime vessels, aircraft, and 
forces of the armed forces by means of— 
‘‘(A) marine data collection; 
‘‘(B) numerical weather and ocean prediction; 
and 
‘‘(C) forecasting of hazardous weather and 
ocean conditions. 
‘‘(2) The Secretary may extend similar support to 
forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and to 
coalition forces, that are operating with the armed forces. 
‘‘(b) HYDROGRAPHIC INFORMATION.—The Secretary 
of the Navy shall collect, process, and provide to the Direc-
222 
‘‘(C) the participant shall be subject to such ac-
tive duty requirements as may be specified in the 
agreement and to active duty in time of war or na-
tional emergency as provided by law for members of 
the Ready Reserve; and 
‘‘(D) the participant shall agree to serve, upon 
successful completion of the program, one year in 
the Ready Reserve for each six months, or part 
thereof, for which the stipend is provided, to be 
served in the Selected Reserve or in the Individual 
Ready Reserve as specified in the agreement.’’. 
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE AMENDMENTS.—Such section 
is further amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘subsection (f)’’ in subsections 
(b)(2)(A), (c)(2)(A), and (d)(2)(A) and inserting 
‘‘subsection (g)’’; and 
(2) in subsection (g), as redesignated by sub-
section (a)(1), by striking ‘‘subsection (b) or (c)’’ 
and inserting ‘‘subsection (b), (c), (d), or (f)’’. 
SEC. 543. ADMINISTRATION OF UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. 
(a) AMENDMENT.—Chapter 901 of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 9314a 
the following new section:
269 
ating Officer, and the Advisory Council regarding 
the direction and oversight of— 
‘‘(1) medical administrative matters at each fa-
cility of the Retirement Home; and 
‘‘(2) the provision of medical care, preventive 
mental health, and dental care services at each facil-
ity of the Retirement Home.’’. 
(b) RELATED DUTIES.—Subsection (c) of such sec-
tion is amended by striking paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) 
and inserting the following new paragraphs: 
‘‘(3) Periodically visit each facility of the Re-
tirement Home to review— 
‘‘(A) the medical facilities, medical oper-
ations, medical records and reports, and the 
quality of care provided to residents; and 
‘‘(B) inspections and audits to ensure that 
appropriate follow-up regarding issues and rec-
ommendations raised by such inspections and 
audits has occurred. 
‘‘(4) Report on the findings and recommenda-
tions developed as a result of each review conducted 
under paragraph (3) to the Chief Operating Officer, 
the Advisory Council, and the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness.’’.
794 
(A) funding for combat operations; 
(B) deploying, transporting, feeding, and 
housing members of the Armed Forces (includ-
ing fuel costs); 
(C) activation and deployment of members 
of the reserve components of the Armed Forces; 
(D) equipping and training of Iraqi and 
Afghani forces; 
(E) purchasing, upgrading, and repairing 
weapons, munitions, and other equipment con-
sumed or used in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Op-
eration New Dawn, Operation Enduring Free-
dom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn; and 
(F) payments to other countries for 
logistical assistance in support of such oper-
ations. 
(10) Past, current, and future costs of entering 
into contracts with private military security firms 
and other contractors for the provision of goods and 
services associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom, 
Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Free-
dom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn. 
(11) Average annual cost for each member of 
the Armed Forces deployed in support of Operation 
Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, Operation
795 
Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn, 
including room and board, equipment and body 
armor, transportation of troops and equipment (in-
cluding fuel costs), and operational costs. 
(12) Current and future cost of combat-related 
special pays and benefits, including reenlistment bo-
nuses. 
(13) Current and future cost of calling or or-
dering members of the reserve components to active 
duty in support of Operation New Dawn, Operation 
Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn. 
(14) Current and future cost for reconstruction, 
embassy operations and construction, and foreign 
aid programs for Iraq and Afghanistan. 
(15) Current and future cost of bases and other 
infrastructure to support members of the Armed 
Forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
(16) Current and future cost of providing 
health care for veterans who served in support of 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, 
Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odys-
sey Dawn— 
(A) the cost of mental health treatment for 
veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress