† HR 1540 PP
phibious Combat Vehicles and Marine Personnel 
Carriers. 
(3) SUPPORT OF ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.— 
The Marine Corps may conduct such technology devel-
opment and demonstration, and such other pre-acqui-
sition activities, tests, exercises, and modeling, as the 
Marine Corps considers necessary to support the 
Analysis of Alternatives required by paragraph (1) 
and the establishment of requirements for the Am-
phibious Combat Vehicle. 
(b) LIMITATION ON MILESTONE B APPROVAL FOR VAR-
IOUS
VEHICLES
PENDING
LIFE-CYCLE
COST
ASSESS-
MENT.— 
(1) LIMITATION.—Milestone B approval may not 
be granted for any Marine Corps ground combat vehi-
cle specified in paragraph (2) until 30 days after the 
date of the submittal to the congressional defense com-
mittees of a life-cycle cost assessment of the portfolio 
of Marine Corps ground vehicles performed by the Di-
rector of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation of 
the Department of Defense. 
(2) COVERED
VEHICLES.—The Marine Corps 
ground combat vehicles specified in this paragraph 
are the following: 
(A) The Marine Personnel Carrier.
† HR 1540 PP
(B) The Amphibious Combat Vehicle. 
(C) The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle 
(JLTV). 
(D) Any other ground combat vehicle of the 
Marine Corps under development as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act for which Milestone 
B approval has not been granted as of that date. 
(c) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Of the amounts author-
ized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012 by section 201 
and available for research, development, test, and evalua-
tion for the Navy as specified in the funding tables in sec-
tion 4201 for Program Elements 0603611M and 0206623M 
for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, the Assault Amphibious 
Vehicle 
7A1, 
and 
the 
Marine 
Personnel 
Carrier, 
$30,000,000 is available for pre-acquisition activities in 
support of the Analysis of Alternatives and requirements 
definition for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle. 
(d) MILESTONE B APPROVAL DEFINED.—In this sec-
tion, the term ‘‘Milestone B approval’’ has the meaning 
given that term in section 2366(e)(7) of title 10, United 
States Code.
† HR 1540 PP
Subtitle C—Missile Defense Matters 
SEC. 231. ENHANCED OVERSIGHT OF MISSILE DEFENSE AC-
QUISITION PROGRAMS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 225 of the Ike Skelton Na-
tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub-
lic Law 111–383; 124 Stat. 4170; 10 U.S.C. 233 note) is 
amended— 
(1) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘each report’’ 
and inserting ‘‘each of the first three reports’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following new sub-
section: 
‘‘(e) COMPTROLLER GENERAL ASSESSMENT.—(1) At 
the end of each of fiscal years 2012 through 2015, the Comp-
troller General of the United States shall review the annual 
reports on acquisition baselines and variances required 
under subsection (c) and assess the extent to which the Mis-
sile Defense Agency has achieved its acquisition goals and 
objectives. 
‘‘(2) Not later than February 15, 2013, and each year 
thereafter through 2016, the Comptroller General shall sub-
mit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 
assessment under paragraph (1) with respect to the acquisi-
tion baselines for the preceding fiscal year. Each report 
shall include any findings and recommendations on missile
† HR 1540 PP
defense acquisition programs and accountability therefore 
that the Comptroller General considers appropriate.’’. 
(b) REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED REPORTING AUTHOR-
ITY.—Section 232 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (10 U.S.C. 2431 note) is amended 
by striking subsection (g). 
SEC. 232. GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE DEFENSE PROGRAM. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings: 
(1) The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) 
element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System was 
deployed initially in 2004 as a contingency capa-
bility to provide initial protection of the United 
States homeland against potential limited long-range 
missile attacks by nations such as North Korea and 
Iran. 
(2) As the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation has reported, prior to the decision in De-
cember 2002 to deploy the system, an operationally 
representative variant of the Ground-Based Inter-
ceptor had not been flight-tested. 
(3) As the Department of Defense and the Gov-
ernment Accountability Office have acknowledged, the 
Ground-based Midcourse Defense system experienced 
high levels of concurrency in development and deploy-
ment, which led to a number of problems. In April
† HR 1540 PP
2011, the Missile Defense Agency acknowledged that 
the system ‘‘is still evolving and has not attained a 
stable configuration between missiles. It is still an 
‘operational prototype’ system’’. 
(4) The Director of Operational Test and Eval-
uation reported in December 2010 that there have not 
been enough flight tests of the Ground-based Mid-
course Defense system to permit an objective assess-
ment of its operational effectiveness, suitability data 
remain insufficient, evaluation of survivability re-
mains limited, and a ‘‘full end-to end performance 
assessment is still a minimum of 6 years away’’. 
(5) As is to be expected from a developmental 
system, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system 
has experienced a number of technical problems in 
flight tests. Many of these problems have been resolved 
with further development, as demonstrated in success-
ful flight tests. The system has been under continuous 
improvement since it was first deployed, but has not 
yet obtained desired levels of effectiveness, suitability, 
or reliability. 
(6) In 2009, the Secretary of Defense announced 
that the Department of Defense would refocus efforts 
on improving the operational capability, reliability, 
and availability of the Ground-based Midcourse De-
† HR 1540 PP
fense system in order to maintain its ability to stay 
ahead of projected threats from North Korea and Iran 
for the foreseeable future. 
(7) In February 2010 the Ballistic Missile De-
fense Review stated the United States is currently 
protected against limited intercontinental ballistic 
missile attacks as a result of investments made over 
the past decade in the Ground-based Midcourse De-
fense system and reiterated the commitment to im-
proving the operational capability, reliability, and 
availability of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense 
System. 
(8) The two most recent flight tests of the 
Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, using the 
newest Capability Enhancement-2 Exo-atmospheric 
Kill Vehicle (EKV) design, each failed to achieve the 
intended interception of a target. 
(9) The two most recent flight tests are not indic-
ative of the functionality of the Capability Enhance-
ment-1 Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle design, which 
continues to provide the United States protection 
against a limited intercontinental ballistic missile at-
tack. 
(10) The Missile Defense Agency established a 
Failure Review Board to determine the root cause of
† HR 1540 PP
the December 2010 flight-test failure of the Ground- 
based Midcourse Defense system. Its analysis will in-
form the proposed correction of the problem causing 
the flight-test failure. 
(11) The Missile Defense Agency plans to design 
a correction of the problem causing the December 
2010 flight-test failure and to verify the correction 
through extensive modeling and simulation, ground 
testing, and two flight tests, the first of which will not 
be an interception test. 
(12) Until completing the verification of its cor-
rective action, the Missile Defense Agency has sus-
pended further production of Exo-atmospheric Kill 
Vehicles to ensure that potential flaws are not incor-
porated into them, and to permit any corrective ac-
tion that may be needed to Exo-atmospheric Kill Ve-
hicles at minimal cost and schedule risk. 
(13) The Director of the Missile Defense Agency 
has testified that the Missile Defense Agency has suffi-
cient funding available and planned for fiscal years 
2011 and 2012, respectively, to implement the 
planned correction of the problem causing the Decem-
ber 2010 flight-test failure. 
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress 
that—
† HR 1540 PP
(1) it is essential for the Ground-based Mid-
course Defense element of the Ballistic Missile Defense 
System to achieve the levels of reliability, availability, 
sustainability, and operational performance that will 
allow it to continue providing protection of the 
United States homeland, throughout its operational 
service life, against limited future missile attacks 
from nations such as North Korea and Iran; 
(2) the Missile Defense Agency should, as its 
highest priority, determine the root cause of the De-
cember 2010 flight-test failure of the Ground-based 
Midcourse Defense system, design a correction of the 
problem causing the flight-test failure, and verify 
through extensive testing that such correction is effec-
tive and will allow the Ground-based Midcourse De-
fense system to reach levels described in paragraph 
(1); 
(3) before verifying the success of the correction 
of the problem causing the December 2010 flight-test 
failure, the Missile Defense Agency should suspend 
further production of Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicles to 
ensure that they will not be deployed with any com-
ponent or design flaws that may have caused the 
flight-test failure;
† HR 1540 PP
(4) after the Missile Defense Agency has verified 
the correction of the problem causing the December 
2010 flight-test failure, including through the two pre-
viously unplanned verification flight tests, the Agency 
should assess the need for any additional Ground- 
Based Interceptors and any additional steps needed 
for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense testing and 
sustainment program; and 
(5) the Department of Defense should plan for 
and budget sufficient future funds for the Ground- 
based Midcourse Defense program to ensure the abil-
ity to complete and verify an effective correction of 
the problem causing the December 2010 flight-test 
failure, and to mitigate the effects of corrective actions 
on previously planned program work that is deferred 
as a result of such corrective actions. 
(c) REPORTS.— 
(1) REPORTS REQUIRED.—Not later than 120 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
one year thereafter, the Secretary of Defense shall sub-
mit to the congressional defense committees a report 
describing the plan of the Department of Defense to 
correct the problem causing the December 2010 flight- 
test failure of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
† HR 1540 PP
system, and any progress toward the achievement of 
that plan. 
(2) ELEMENTS.—Each report required by para-
graph (1) shall include the following: 
(A) A detailed discussion of the plan to cor-
rect the problem described in that paragraph, in-
cluding plans for diagnostic, design, testing, and 
manufacturing actions. 
(B) A detailed discussion of any results ob-
tained from the plan described in subparagraph 
(A) as of the date of such report, including diag-
nostic, design, testing, or manufacturing results. 
(C) A description of any cost or schedule 
impact of the plan on the Ground-based Mid-
course Defense program, including on testing, 
production, refurbishment, or deferred work. 
(D) A description of any planned adjust-
ments to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense 
program as a result of the implementation of the 
plan, including future programmatic, schedule, 
testing, or funding adjustments. 
(E) A description of any enhancements to 
the capability of the Ground-based Midcourse 
Defense system achieved or planned since the 
submittal of the budget for fiscal year 2010 pur-
† HR 1540 PP
suant to section 1105 of title 31, United States 
Code. 
(3) FORM.—Each report required by paragraph 
(1) shall be in unclassified form, but may include a 
classified annex. 
SEC. 233. MISSILE DEFENSE COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings: 
(1) For more than a decade, the United States 
and Russia have discussed a variety of options for co-
operation on shared early warning and ballistic mis-
sile defense. For example, on May 1, 2001, President 
George W. Bush spoke of a ‘‘new cooperative relation-
ship’’ with Russia and said it ‘‘should be premised on 
openness, mutual confidence and real opportunities 
for cooperation, including the area of missile defense. 
It should allow us to share information so that each 
nation can improve its early warning capability, and 
its capability to defend its people and territory. And 
perhaps one day, we can even cooperate in a joint de-
fense’’. 
(2) Section 1231 of the Floyd D. Spence Na-
tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 
(as enacted into law by Public Law 106–398; 1654A– 
329) authorized the Department of Defense to estab-
lish in Russia a ‘‘joint center for the exchange of data
† HR 1540 PP
from systems to provide early warning of launches of 
ballistic missiles and for notification of launches of 
such missiles’’, also known as the Joint Data Ex-
change Center (JDEC). 
(3) On March 31, 2008, Deputy Secretary of De-
fense Gordon England stated that ‘‘we have offered 
Russia a wide-ranging proposal to cooperate on mis-
sile defense—everything from modeling and simula-
tion, to data sharing, to joint development of a re-
gional missile defense architecture—all designed to 
defend the United States, Europe, and Russia from 
the growing threat of Iranian ballistic missiles. An 
extraordinary series of transparency measures have 
also been offered to reassure Russia. Despite some 
Russian reluctance to sign up to these cooperative 
missile defense activities, we continue to work toward 
this goal’’. 
(4) On July 6, 2009, President Barack Obama 
and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a 
joint statement on missile defense issues, which stated 
that ‘‘Russia and the United States plan to continue 
the discussion concerning the establishment of co-
operation in responding to the challenge of ballistic 
missile proliferation. . . We have instructed our ex-
perts to work together to analyze the ballistic missile
† HR 1540 PP
challenges of the 21st century and to prepare appro-
priate recommendations’’. 
(5) The February 2010 report of the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Review established as one of its cen-
tral policy pillars that increased international missile 
defense cooperation is in the national security interest 
of the United States and, with regard to cooperation 
with Russia, the United States ‘‘is pursuing a broad 
agenda focused on shared early warning of missile 
launches, possible technical cooperation, and even 
operational cooperation’’. 
(6) at the November 2010 Lisbon Summit, the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) decided 
to develop a missile defense system to ‘‘protect NATO 
European populations, territory and forces’’ and also 
to seek cooperation with Russia on missile defense. In 
its Lisbon Summit Declaration, the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization reaffirmed its readiness to ‘‘in-
vite Russia to explore jointly the potential for linking 
current and planned missile defence systems at an 
appropriate time in mutually beneficial ways’’. The 
new NATO Strategic Concept adopted at the Lisbon 
Summit states that ‘‘we will actively seek cooperation 
on missile defence with Russia’’, that ‘‘NATO-Russia 
cooperation is of strategic importance’’, and that ‘‘the
† HR 1540 PP
security of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
and Russia is intertwined’’. 
(7) In a December 18, 2010, letter to the leader-
ship of the Senate, President Obama wrote that the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization ‘‘invited Russia 
to cooperate on missile defense, which could lead to 
adding Russian capabilities to those deployed by 
NATO to enhance our common security against com-
mon threats. The Lisbon Summit thus demonstrated 
that the Alliance’s missile defenses can be strength-
ened by improving NATO-Russian relations. This 
comes even as we have made clear that the system we 
intend to pursue with Russia will not be a joint sys-
tem, and it will not in any way limit United States’ 
or NATO’s missile defense capabilities. Effective co-
operation with Russia could enhance the overall effi-
ciency of our combined territorial missile defenses, 
and at the same time provide Russia with greater se-
curity’’. 
(8) Section 221(a)(3) of the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub-
lic Law 111–383; 124 Stat. 4167) states that it is the 
sense of Congress ‘‘to support the efforts of the United 
States Government and the North Atlantic Treaty Or-
ganization to pursue cooperation with the Russian
† HR 1540 PP
Federation on ballistic missile defense relative to Ira-
nian missile threats’’. 
(9) In a speech in Russia on March 21, 2011, 
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates cited ‘‘the NATO- 
Russian decision to cooperate on defense against bal-
listic missiles. We’ve disagreed before, and Russia still 
has uncertainties about the European Phased Adapt-
ive Approach, a limited system that poses no chal-
lenges to the large Russian nuclear arsenal. However, 
we’ve mutually committed to resolving these difficul-
ties in order to develop a roadmap toward truly effec-
tive anti-ballistic missile collaboration. This collabo-
ration may include exchanging launch information, 
setting up a joint data fusion center, allowing greater 
transparency with respect to our missile defense plans 
and exercises, and conducting a joint analysis to de-
termine areas of future cooperation’’. 
(10) In testimony to the Committee on Armed 
Services of the Senate on April 13, 2011, Deputy As-
sistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile 
Defense Policy Bradley H. Roberts stated that the 
United States has been pursuing a Defense Tech-
nology Cooperation Agreement with Russia since 
2004, and that such an agreement is necessary ‘‘for 
the safeguarding of sensitive information in support
† HR 1540 PP
of cooperation’’ on missile defense, and to ‘‘provide 
the legal framework for undertaking cooperative ef-
forts.’’ Further, Dr. Roberts stated that the United 
States would not provide any classified information 
to Russia without first conducting a National Disclo-
sure Policy review. He also stated that the United 
States is not considering sharing ‘‘hit-to-kill’’ tech-
nology with Russia. 
(11) The United States and Russia already en-
gage in substantial cooperation on a number of inter-
national security efforts, including nuclear non-
proliferation, anti-piracy, counter-narcotics, nuclear 
security, counter-terrorism, and logistics resupply 
through Russia of coalition forces in Afghanistan. 
These areas of cooperation require each side to share 
and protect sensitive information, which they have 
both done successfully. 
(12) The United States currently has shared 
early warning agreements and programs of coopera-
tion with eight nations in addition to the North At-
lantic Treaty Organization. The United States has 
developed procedures and mechanisms for sharing 
early warning information with partner nations 
while ensuring the protection of sensitive United 
States information.
† HR 1540 PP
(13) Russia and the United States each have 
missile launch early warning and detection and 
tracking sensors that could contribute to and enhance 
each others’ ability to detect, track, an defend against 
ballistic missile threats from Iran. 
(14) The Obama Administration has provided 
regular briefings to Congress on its discussions with 
Russia on possible missile defense cooperation. 
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress 
that— 
(1) it is in the national security interest of the 
United States to pursue efforts at missile defense co-
operation with Russia that would enhance the secu-
rity of the United States, its North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization allies, and Russia, particularly against 
missile threats from Iran; 
(2) the United States should pursue ballistic 
missile defense cooperation with Russia on both a bi-
lateral basis and a multilateral basis with its North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, particularly 
through the NATO-Russia Council; 
(3) missile defense cooperation with Russia 
should not ‘‘in any way limit United States’ or 
NATO’s missile defense capabilities’’, as acknowledged 
in the December 18, 2010, letter from President
† HR 1540 PP
Obama to the leadership of the Senate, and should be 
mutually beneficial and reciprocal in nature; and 
(4) the United States should pursue missile de-
fense cooperation with Russia in a manner that en-
sures that— 
(A) United States classified information is 
appropriately safeguarded and protected from 
unauthorized disclosure; 
(B) prior to sharing classified information 
with Russia, the United States conducts a Na-
tional Disclosure Policy review and determines 
the types and levels of information that may be 
shared and whether any additional procedures 
are necessary to protect such information; 
(C) prior to entering into missile defense 
technology cooperation projects, the United 
States enters into a Defense Technology Coopera-
tion Agreement with Russia that establishes the 
legal framework for a broad spectrum of poten-
tial cooperative defense projects; and 
(D) such cooperation does not limit the mis-
sile defense capabilities of the United States or 
its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies. 
(c) REPORT.—
† HR 1540 PP
(1) REPORT
REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
President shall submit to the appropriate committees 
of Congress a report on the status of efforts to reach 
agreement with Russia on missile defense cooperation. 
(2) ELEMENTS.—The report required under 
paragraph (1) shall include the following: 
(A) A summary of the status of discussions 
between the United States and Russia, and be-
tween the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
and Russia, on efforts to agree on missile defense 
cooperation. 
(B) A description of any agreements 
reached pursuant to such discussions, and any 
specific cooperative measures agreed, imple-
mented, or planned. 
(C) A discussion of the manner in which 
such cooperative measures would enhance the se-
curity of the United States, and the manner in 
which such cooperative measures fit within the 
larger context of United States-Russian coopera-
tion on international security. 
(D) A description of the status of efforts to 
conclude a bilateral Defense Technology Coopera-
tion Agreement with Russia.
† HR 1540 PP
(E) A description of the status of any Na-
tional Disclosure Policy Review relative to the 
possible sharing of classified information with 
Russia concerning missile defense cooperation. 
(F) A discussion of the actions that are 
being taken or are planned to be taken to safe-
guard United States classified information in 
any agreement or discussions with Russia con-
cerning missile defense cooperation. 
(3) FORM OF REPORT.—The report required by 
paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, 
but may include a classified annex. 
(4) APPROPRIATE
COMMITTEES
OF
CONGRESS 
DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘appropriate 
committees of Congress’’ means— 
(A) the Committees on Armed Services, For-
eign Relations, and Appropriations of the Sen-
ate; and 
(B) the Committees on Armed Services, For-
eign Affairs, and Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives. 
SEC. 234. REPORT ON THE UNITED STATES MISSILE DE-
FENSE HEDGING STRATEGY. 
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
† HR 1540 PP
of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense commit-
tees a report setting forth the findings and conclusions of 
the homeland missile defense hedging strategy review, in-
cluding a discussion of the feasibility and advisability of 
establishing a missile defense site on the East Coast of the 
United States. 
(b) FORM.—The report required by subsection (a) shall 
be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classi-
fied annex. 
Subtitle D—Reports 
SEC. 251. EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR BIENNIAL 
ROADMAP AND ANNUAL REVIEW AND CER-
TIFICATION ON FUNDING FOR DEVELOPMENT 
OF HYPERSONICS. 
Section 218(e)(3) of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109– 
364; 120 Stat. 2126; 10 U.S.C. 2358 note) is amended by 
striking ‘‘2012’’ and inserting ‘‘2020’’.
† HR 1540 PP
Subtitle E—Other Matters 
SEC. 261. CONTRACTOR COST-SHARING IN PILOT PROGRAM 
TO INCLUDE TECHNOLOGY PROTECTION FEA-
TURES DURING RESEARCH AND DEVELOP-
MENT OF CERTAIN DEFENSE SYSTEMS. 
Section 243 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Au-
thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383; 
124 Stat. 4178; 10 U.S.C. 2358 note) is amended— 
(1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) 
as subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively; and 
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following 
new subsection (b): 
‘‘(b) COST-SHARING.—Any contract for the design or 
development of a system resulting from activities under sub-
section (a) for the purpose of enhancing or enabling the 
exportability of the system either (1) for the development 
of program protection strategies for the system, or (2) for 
the design and incorporation of exportability features into 
the system shall include a cost-sharing provision that re-
quires the contractor to bear at least one half of the cost 
of such activities.’’. 
SEC. 262. LABORATORY FACILITIES, HANOVER, NEW HAMP-
SHIRE. 
(a) ACQUISITION.—
† HR 1540 PP
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (3), the 
Secretary of the Army (referred to in this section as 
the ‘‘Secretary’’) may acquire any real property and 
associated real property interests in the vicinity of 
Hanover, New Hampshire, described in paragraph 
(2) as may be needed for the Engineer Research and 
Development Center laboratory facilities at the Cold 
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. 
(2) DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY.—The real 
property described in this paragraph is the real prop-
erty to be acquired under paragraph (1)— 
(A) consisting of approximately 18.5 acres, 
identified as Tracts 101–1 and 101–2, together 
with all necessary easements located entirely 
within the Town of Hanover, New Hampshire; 
and 
(B) generally bounded— 
(i) to the east by state route 10-Lyme 
Road; 
(ii) to the north by the vacant property 
of the Trustees of Dartmouth College; 
(iii) to the south by Fletcher Circle 
graduate student housing owned by the 
Trustees of Dartmouth College; and
† HR 1540 PP
(iv) to the west by approximately 9 
acres of real property acquired in fee 
through condemnation in 1981 by the Sec-
retary. 
(3) AMOUNT
PAID
FOR
PROPERTY.—The Sec-
retary shall pay not more than fair market value for 
any real property and associated real property inter-
est acquired under this subsection. 
(b) REVOLVING FUND.—The Secretary— 
(1) through the Plant Replacement and Improve-
ment Program of the Secretary, may use amounts in 
the revolving fund established by section 101 of the 
Civil Functions Appropriations Act, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 
576) to acquire the real property and associated real 
property interests described in subsection (a); and 
(2) shall ensure that the revolving fund is appro-
priately reimbursed from the benefitting appropria-
tions. 
(c) RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may provide 
the seller of any real property and associated prop-
erty interests identified in subsection (a) a right of 
first refusal— 
(A) a right of first refusal to acquire the 
property, or any portion of the property, in the
† HR 1540 PP
event the property or portion is no longer needed 
by the Department of the Army; and 
(B) a right of first refusal to acquire any 
real property or associated real property inter-
ests acquired by condemnation in Civil Action 
No. 81–360–L, in the event the property, or any 
portion of the property, is no longer needed by 
the Department of the Army. 
(2) NATURE OF RIGHT.—A right of first refusal 
provided to a seller under this subsection shall not 
inure to the benefit of any successor or assign of the 
seller. 
(d) CONSIDERATION; FAIR MARKET VALUE.—The pur-
chase of any property by a seller exercising a right of first 
refusal provided under subsection (c) shall be for— 
(1) consideration acceptable to the Secretary; 
and 
(2) not less than fair market value at the time 
at which the property becomes available for purchase. 
(e) DISPOSAL.—The Secretary may dispose of any 
property or associated real property interests that are sub-
ject to the exercise of the right of first refusal under this 
section. 
(f) NO EFFECT
ON COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRON-
MENTAL LAWS.—Nothing in this section affects or limits
† HR 1540 PP
the application of or obligation to comply with any envi-
ronmental law, including section 120(h) of the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)). 
TITLE III—OPERATION AND 
MAINTENANCE 
Subtitle A—Authorization of 
Appropriations 
SEC. 301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING. 
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fis-
cal year 2012 for the use of the Armed Forces and other 
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for ex-
penses, not otherwise provided for, for operation and main-
tenance, as specified in the funding table in section 4301. 
Subtitle B—Energy and 
Environmental Provisions 
SEC. 
311. 
MODIFICATION 
OF 
ENERGY 
PERFORMANCE 
GOALS. 
(a) MODIFICATION OF GOALS.—Section 2911(e) of title 
10, United States Code, is amended— 
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking 
‘‘GOAL’’ and inserting ‘‘GOALS’’; and 
(2) in paragraph (1)—
† HR 1540 PP
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) 
and (B) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respec-
tively; and 
(B) by inserting before subparagraph (D), 
as redesignated by subparagraph (A) of this 
paragraph, the following new subparagraphs: 
‘‘(A) to produce or procure not less than 12 per-
cent of the total quantity of facility energy it con-
sumes within its facilities during each of fiscal years 
2015 through 2017 from renewable energy sources; 
‘‘(B) to produce or procure not less than 16 per-
cent of the total quantity of facility energy it con-
sumes within its facilities during each of fiscal years 
2018 through 2020 from renewable energy sources; 
‘‘(C) to produce or procure not less than 20 per-
cent of the total quantity of facility energy it con-
sumes within its facilities during each of fiscal years 
2021 through 2024 from renewable energy sources;’’. 
(b) INCLUSION OF DIRECT SOLAR AS ENERGY EFFI-
CIENT PRODUCT.—Section 2915(e)(2)(A) of such title is 
amended by inserting ‘‘direct solar,’’ after ‘‘Roof-top solar 
thermal,’’.
† HR 1540 PP
SEC. 312. STREAMLINED ANNUAL REPORT ON DEFENSE EN-
VIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 160 of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
new section: 
‘‘§ 2711. Annual report on defense environmental pro-
grams 
‘‘(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense 
shall submit to Congress each year, not later than 45 days 
after the date on which the President submits to Congress 
the budget for a fiscal year, a report on defense environ-
mental programs. Each report shall include: 
‘‘(1) With respect to environmental restoration 
activities of the Department of Defense, and for each 
of the military departments, the following elements: 
‘‘(A) Information on the Installation Res-
toration Program, including the following: 
‘‘(i) The total number of sites in the 
IRP. 
‘‘(ii) The number of sites in the IRP 
that have reached the Remedy in Place 
Stage and the Response Complete Stage, 
and the change in such numbers in the pre-
ceding calendar year. 
‘‘(iii) A statement of the amount of 
funds allocated by the Secretary for, and the
† HR 1540 PP
anticipated progress in implementing, the 
environmental restoration program during 
the fiscal year for which the budget is sub-
mitted. 
‘‘(iv) The Secretary’s assessment of the 
overall progress of the IRP. 
‘‘(B) Information on the Military Muni-
tions Restoration Program (MMRP), including 
the following: 
‘‘(i) The total number of sites in the 
MMRP. 
‘‘(ii) The number of sites that have 
reached the Remedy in Place Stage and the 
Response Complete Stage, and the change in 
such numbers in the preceding calendar 
year. 
‘‘(iii) A statement of the amount of 
funds allocated by the Secretary for, and the 
anticipated progress in implementing, the 
MMRP during the fiscal year for which the 
budget is submitted. 
‘‘(iv) The Secretary’s assessment of the 
overall progress of the MMRP. 
‘‘(2) With respect to each of the major activities 
under the environmental quality program of the De-
† HR 1540 PP
partment of Defense and for each of the military de-
partments— 
‘‘(A) a statement of the amount expended, 
or proposed to be expended, during the period 
consisting of the four fiscal years preceding the 
fiscal year in which the report is submitted, the 
fiscal year for which the budget is submitted, 
and the fiscal year following the fiscal year for 
which the budget is submitted; and 
‘‘(B) an explanation for any significant 
change in such amounts during the period cov-
ered. 
‘‘(3) With respect to the environmental tech-
nology program of the Department of Defense— 
‘‘(A) a report on the progress made by in 
achieving the objectives and goals of its environ-
mental technology program during the preceding 
fiscal year and an overall trend analysis for the 
program covering the previous four fiscal years; 
and 
‘‘(B) a statement of the amount expended, 
or proposed to be expended, during the period 
consisting of the four fiscal years preceding the 
fiscal year in which the report is submitted, the 
fiscal year for which the budget is submitted,
† HR 1540 PP
and the fiscal year following the fiscal year for 
which the budget is submitted. 
‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section— 
‘‘(1) the term ‘environmental quality program’ 
means a program of activities relating to environ-
mental compliance, conservation, pollution preven-
tion, and other activities relating to environmental 
quality as the Secretary may designate; and 
‘‘(2) the term ‘major activities’ with respect to 
an environmental program means— 
‘‘(A) environmental compliance activities; 
‘‘(B) conservation activities; and 
‘‘(C) pollution prevention activities.’’. 
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at 
the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after 
the item relating to section 2710 the following new item: 
‘‘2711. Annual report on defense environmental programs.’’. 
SEC. 313. PAYMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY OF STIPULATED PENALTIES IN CON-
NECTION WITH JACKSON PARK HOUSING 
COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. 
(a) AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER FUNDS.— 
(1) TRANSFER AMOUNT.—Using funds described 
in subsection (b) and notwithstanding section 2215 of 
title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of the 
Navy may transfer not more than $45,000 to the
† HR 1540 PP
Hazardous Substance Superfund Jackson Park Hous-
ing Complex, Washington, special account. 
(2) PURPOSE
OF
TRANSFER.—The payment 
under paragraph (1) is to pay a stipulated penalty 
assessed by the Environmental Protection Agency on 
October 7, 2009, against the Jackson Park Housing 
Complex, Washington, for the failure by the Navy to 
submit a draft Final Remedial Investigation/Feasi-
bility Study for the Jackson Park Housing Complex 
Operable Unit (OU–3T–JPHC) in accordance with 
the requirements of the Interagency Agreement (Ad-
ministrative Docket No. CERCLA–10–2005–0023). 
(b) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—Any payment under sub-
section (a) shall be made using funds authorized to be ap-
propriated by section 301 for operation and maintenance 
for Environmental Restoration, Navy. 
(c) USE OF FUNDS.—The amount transferred under 
subsection (a) shall be used by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency to pay the penalty described under paragraph 
(2) of such subsection.
† HR 1540 PP
SEC. 314. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO AGENCY FOR 
TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY 
INVESTIGATION OF EXPOSURE TO DRINKING 
WATER CONTAMINATION AT CAMP LEJEUNE, 
NORTH CAROLINA. 
(a) LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.—None of the 
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be 
used to make a final decision on or final adjudication of 
any claim filed regarding water contamination at Marine 
Corps Base Camp Lejeune unless the Agency for Toxic Sub-
stances and Disease Registry completes all epidemiological 
and water modeling studies relevant to such contamination 
that are ongoing as of June 1, 2011, and certifies the com-
pletion of all such studies in writing to the Committees on 
Armed Services for the Senate and the House of Representa-
tives. This provision does not prevent the use of funds for 
routine administrative tasks required to maintain such 
claims nor does it prohibit the use of funds for matters 
pending in Federal court. 
(b) RESOLUTION OF CERTAIN DISPUTES.—The Sec-
retary of the Navy shall make every effort to resolve any 
dispute arising between the Department of the Navy and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry that 
is covered by the Interagency Agreement between the De-
partment of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry and the Department of the
† HR 1540 PP
Navy or any successor memorandum of understanding and 
signed agreements not later than 60 days after the date on 
which the dispute first arises. In the event the Secretary 
is unable to resolve such a dispute within 60 days, the Sec-
retary shall submit to the congressional defense committees 
a report on the reasons why an agreement has not yet been 
reached, the actions that the Secretary plans to take to reach 
agreement, and the schedule for taking such actions. 
(c) COORDINATION PRIOR TO RELEASING INFORMA-
TION TO THE PUBLIC.—The Secretary of the Navy shall 
make every effort to coordinate with the Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry on all issues pertaining 
to water contamination at Marine Corps Base Camp 
Lejeune, and other exposed pathways before releasing any-
thing to the public. 
SEC. 315. 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
† HR 1540 PP
‘‘(B) any other ship specifically excluded by the 
MARPOL Protocol or the Antarctic Protocol. 
‘‘(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 department, 
and that, as determined by the Secretary concerned— 
‘‘(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 Con-
vention shall apply to all ships referred to in subsection 
(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, plastic 
garbage bags, and incinerator ashes from plastic 
products that may contain toxic chemicals or heavy 
metals, or the residues thereof, is prohibited.
† HR 1540 PP
‘‘(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 shred-
ded 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 garbage- 
processing equipment sufficient to meet the requirements of
† HR 1540 PP
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 sav-
ing life at sea. 
‘‘(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 
subsections (b)(2)(A) and (c)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘sub-
section (b)’’; and
† HR 1540 PP
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘and sub-
section (b)(3)(B)(i) of this section’’ after ‘‘Annex V to 
the Convention’’. 
SEC. 316. CONSIDERATION OF ENERGY SECURITY AND RE-
LIABILITY IN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMEN-
TATION OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE GOALS. 
Section 2911(c) of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 
‘‘(12) Opportunities to enhance energy security 
and reliability of defense facilities and missions, in-
cluding through the ability to operate for extended pe-
riods off-grid.’’. 
SEC. 317. INSTALLATION ENERGY METERING REQUIRE-
MENTS. 
The Secretary of Defense shall, to the maximum extent 
practicable, require that the information generated by the 
installation energy meters be captured and tracked to deter-
mine baseline energy consumption and facilitate efforts to 
reduce energy consumption. 
SEC. 318. TRAINING POLICY FOR DEPARTMENT OF DE-
FENSE ENERGY MANAGERS. 
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF TRAINING POLICY.—The Sec-
retary of Defense shall establish a training policy for De-
partment of Defense energy managers designated for mili-
tary installations in order to—
† HR 1540 PP
(1) improve the knowledge, skills, and abilities of 
energy managers by ensuring understanding of exist-
ing energy laws, regulations, mandates, contracting 
options, local renewable portfolio standards, current 
renewable energy technology options, energy auditing, 
and options to reduce energy consumption; 
(2) improve consistency among energy managers 
throughout the Department in the performance of 
their responsibilities; 
(3) create opportunities and forums for energy 
managers to exchange ideas and lessons learned with-
in each military department, as well as across the 
Department of Defense; and 
(4) collaborate with the Department of Energy 
regarding energy manager training. 
(b) ISSUANCE OF POLICY.—Not later than 180 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
of Defense shall issue the training policy for Department 
of Defense energy managers. 
(c) BRIEFING REQUIREMENT.—Not later than 180 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec-
retary of Defense, or designated representatives of the Sec-
retary, shall brief the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives regarding the details 
of the energy manager policy.
† HR 1540 PP
Subtitle C—Workplace and Depot 
Issues 
SEC. 321. MINIMUM CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR CERTAIN 
DEPOTS. 
Section 2476 of title 10, United States Code, is amend-
ed— 
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘Each fiscal 
year, the Secretary of a military department shall in-
vest’’ and inserting ‘‘Each fiscal year, it shall be the 
objective of the Secretary of a military department to 
invest’’; 
(2) in subsection (b)— 
(A) by striking ‘‘includes investment funds 
spent on depot infrastructure, equipment, and 
process improvement in direct support’’ and in-
serting ‘‘includes investment funds spent to mod-
ernize or improve the efficiency of depot facili-
ties, equipment, work environment, or processes 
in direct support’’; and 
(B) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘It 
does not include funds spent for any other repair 
or activity to maintain or sustain existing facili-
ties, infrastructure, or equipment.’’; 
(3) in subsection (d)—
† HR 1540 PP
(A) by striking ‘‘(1) Not later than’’ and in-
serting ‘‘Not later than’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘summarizing the level of 
capital investment for each military depart-
ment’’ and inserting ‘‘summarizing the level of 
capital investment in the military departments’’; 
and 
(C) by striking paragraph (2); and 
(4) in subsection (e)(1), by adding at the end the 
following new subparagraphs: 
‘‘(I) Crane Ammunition Activity, Indiana. 
‘‘(J) McAlester Ammunition Plant, Okla-
homa. 
‘‘(K) Radford Ammunition Plant, Virginia. 
‘‘(L) Lake City Ammunition Plant, Mis-
souri. 
‘‘(M) Holsten Ammunition Plant, Ten-
nessee. 
‘‘(N) Scranton Ammunition Plant, Pennsyl-
vania. 
‘‘(O) Iowa Ammunition Plant, Iowa. 
‘‘(P) Milan Ammunition Plant, Tennessee. 
‘‘(Q) Joint System Manufacturing Center, 
Lima Ohio.’’.
† HR 1540 PP
SEC. 322. LIMITATION ON REVISING THE DEFINITION OF 
DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE. 
(a) LIMITATION.—The Secretary of Defense or any of 
the Secretaries of the military departments may not issue 
guidance, regulations, policy, or revisions to any Depart-
ment of Defense or service instructions containing a revi-
sion to the definition of depot-level maintenance unless the 
Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees 
the report described in subsection (b). 
(b) REPORT.—The report referred to in subsection (a) 
is a report prepared by the Defense Business Board regard-
ing the advisability of establishing a single definition of 
depot-level maintenance, taking into consideration— 
(1) the total industrial capacity, both in the pri-
vate sector industry and in the depots; 
(2) the importance of establishing requirements 
and allocating workload on the basis of sound busi-
ness case analyses; and 
(3) establishing transparency and accountability 
in the development of the core workload requirements 
and in the allocation of workload under the require-
ments in section 2466 of title 10, United States Code.
† HR 1540 PP
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 ‘‘and may designate any military in-
dustrial facility’’ after ‘‘shall designate each depot-level ac-
tivity’’. 
SEC. 324. REPORTS ON DEPOT-RELATED ACTIVITIES. 
(a) REPORT ON DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE AND RE-
CAPITALIZATION OF CERTAIN PARTS AND EQUIPMENT.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Defense in consultation with the military depart-
ments, shall submit to the congressional defense com-
mittees a report on the status of the Drawdown, Ret-
rograde and Reset Program for the equipment used in 
support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
the status of the overall supply chain management for 
depot-level activities. 
(2) ELEMENTS.—The report required under 
paragraph (1) shall include the following elements: 
(A) An assessment of the number of back-
logged parts for critical warfighter needs, an ex-
planation of why those parts became backlogged, 
and an estimate of when the backlog is likely to 
be fully addressed.
† HR 1540 PP
(B) A review of critical warfighter require-
ments that are being impacted by a lack of sup-
plies and parts and an explanation of steps that 
the Director plans to take to meet the demand re-
quirements of the military departments. 
(C) An assessment of the feasibility and ad-
visability of working with outside commercial 
partners to utilize flexible and efficient turn-key 
rapid production systems to meet rapidly emerg-
ing warfighter requirements. 
(D) A review of plans to further consolidate 
the ordering and stocking of parts and supplies 
from the military departments at depots under 
the control of the Defense Logistics Agency. 
(3) FLEXIBLE AND EFFICIENT TURN-KEY RAPID 
PRODUCTION SYSTEMS DEFINED.—For the purposes of 
this subsection, flexible and efficient turn-key rapid 
production systems are systems that have dem-
onstrated the capability to reduce the costs of parts, 
improve manufacturing efficiency, and have the fol-
lowing unique features: 
(A) VIRTUAL AND FLEXIBLE.—Systems that 
provide for flexibility to rapidly respond to re-
quests for low-volume or high-volume machined 
parts and surge demand by accessing the full ca-
† HR 1540 PP
pacity of small- and medium-sized manufac-
turing communities in the United States. 
(B) SPEED TO MARKET.—Systems that pro-
vide for flexibility that allows rapid introduction 
of subassemblies for new parts and weapons sys-
tems to the warfighter. 
(C) RISK MANAGEMENT.—Systems that pro-
vide for the electronic archiving and updating of 
turn-key rapid production packages to provide 
insurance to the Department of Defense that 
parts will be available if there is a supply chain 
disruption. 
(b) REPORT ON THE ALIGNMENT, ORGANIZATIONAL 
REPORTING, AND PERFORMANCE RATING OF AIR FORCE 
SYSTEM PROGRAM MANAGERS, SUSTAINMENT PROGRAM 
MANAGERS, AND PRODUCT SUPPORT MANAGERS AT AIR 
LOGISTICS CENTERS OR AIR LOGISTICS COMPLEXES.— 
(1) REPORT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of the 
Air Force shall enter into an agreement with a feder-
ally funded research and development center to sub-
mit to the congressional defense committees, not later 
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, a report on the alignment, organizational report-
ing, and performance rating of Air Force system pro-
gram managers, sustainment program managers, and
† HR 1540 PP
product support managers at Air Logistics Centers or 
Air Logistics Complexes. 
(2) ELEMENTS.—The report required under 
paragraph (1) shall include the following elements: 
(A) Consideration of the proposed reorga-
nization of Air Force Materiel Command an-
nounced on November 2, 2011. 
(B) An assessment of how various alter-
natives for aligning the managers described in 
subsection (a) within Air Force Materiel Com-
mand would likely support and impact life cycle 
management, weapon system sustainment, and 
overall support to the warfighter. 
(C) With respect to the alignment of the 
managers described in subsection (A), an exam-
ination of how the Air Force should be organized 
to best conduct life cycle management and weap-
on system sustainment, with any analysis of cost 
and savings factors subject to the consideration 
of overall readiness. 
(D) Recommended alternatives for meeting 
these objectives. 
(3) COOPERATION
OF
SECRETARY
OF
AIR 
FORCE.—The Secretary of the Air Force shall provide 
any necessary information and background materials
† HR 1540 PP
necessary for completion of the report required under 
paragraph (1). 
Subtitle D—Reports 
SEC. 331. STUDY ON AIR FORCE TEST AND TRAINING 
RANGE INFRASTRUCTURE. 
(a) STUDY.— 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Air 
Force shall conduct a study on the ability of the 
major air test and training range infrastructure, in-
cluding major military operating area airspace and 
special use airspace, to support the full spectrum of 
Air Force operations. The Secretary shall incorporate 
the results of the study into a master plan for require-
ments and proposed investments to meet Air Force 
training and test needs through 2025. The study and 
the master plan shall be known as the ‘‘2025 Air Test 
and Training Range Enhancement Plan’’. 
(2) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary of the Air 
Force shall, in conducting the study required under 
paragraph (1), consult with the Secretaries of the 
other military departments to determine opportuni-
ties for joint use and training of the ranges, and to 
assess the requirements needed to support combined 
arms training on the ranges. The Secretary shall also 
consult with the Department of the Interior, the De-