HR 2647 PCS 
Subtitle C—Missile Defense 
Programs 
SEC. 221. INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM 
PROJECT. 
Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for re-
search and development of the Army Integrated Air and 
Missile Defense project (program element 63327A), not 
more than 25 percent may be obligated until the Secretary 
of Defense has certified to the congressional defense com-
mittees that the Secretary has— 
(1) carried out a review of the project; 
(2) determined that the project is an affordable, 
executable project; 
(3) determined that the project meets a current 
required capability; and 
(4) determined that no other project could be 
executed, at a lower cost, that would be capable of 
fulfilling the required capability to the same or ap-
proximate level of effectiveness as the Army Inte-
grated Air and Missile Defense project. 
SEC. 
222. 
GROUND-BASED 
MIDCOURSE 
DEFENSE 
SUSTAINMENT AND MODERNIZATION PRO-
GRAM. 
(a) PROGRAM REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense 
shall carry out a sustainment and modernization program 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
to ensure the long-term reliability, availability, maintain-
ability, and supportability of the ground-based midcourse 
defense system to protect the United States against lim-
ited ballistic missile attacks whether accidental, unauthor-
ized, or deliberate. 
(b) PROGRAM ELEMENTS.—The program required by 
subsection (a) shall include each of the following elements: 
(1) Sustainment and operations. 
(2) Aging and surveillance. 
(3) System and component level assessments, 
engineering analysis, and modeling and simulation. 
(4) Ground and flight testing. 
(5) Readiness exercises. 
(6) Modernization and enhancement. 
(7) Any other element the Secretary determines 
is appropriate. 
(c) CONSULTATION.—In implementing the program 
required by subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall 
consult with the commanders of the appropriate combat-
ant commands to ensure the sustainment and moderniza-
tion requirements of such commands are reflected in such 
program. 
(d) BUDGET SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT.—For each 
budget submitted by the President to Congress under sec-
tion 1105 of title 31, the Secretary of Defense shall con-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
currently submit to the congressional defense committees 
a report that clearly identifies the amounts requested for 
each of the program elements referred to in subsection (b). 
(e) REPORT.—Not later than 120 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a re-
port outlining the long-term sustainment and moderniza-
tion plan of the Department of Defense for the ground- 
based midcourse defense system. 
SEC. 223. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR AC-
QUISITION OR DEPLOYMENT OF MISSILE DE-
FENSES IN EUROPE. 
No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act 
or otherwise made available for the Department of De-
fense for fiscal year 2010 or any fiscal year thereafter may 
be obligated or expended for the acquisition (other than 
initial long-lead procurement) or deployment of oper-
ational missiles of a long-range missile defense system in 
Europe until the Secretary of Defense, after receiving the 
views of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, 
submits to the congressional defense committees a report 
certifying that the proposed interceptor and the proposed 
radars to be deployed as part of such missile defense sys-
tem has demonstrated, through successful, operationally 
realistic flight testing, a high probability of working in an 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
operationally effective manner and the ability to accom-
plish the mission. 
SEC. 224. SENSE OF CONGRESS REAFFIRMING CONTINUED 
SUPPORT FOR PROTECTING THE UNITED 
STATES AGAINST LIMITED BALLISTIC MIS-
SILE ATTACKS WHETHER ACCIDENTAL, UN-
AUTHORIZED, OR DELIBERATE. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find-
ings: 
(1) Congress passed and the President signed 
the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (Public 
Law 106–38), which stated: ‘‘It is the policy of the 
United States to deploy as soon as is technologically 
possible an effective National Missile Defense system 
capable of defending the territory of the United 
States against limited ballistic missile attack (wheth-
er accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate). 
(2) The United States has thus far deployed 26 
long-range, 
Ground-based, 
Midcourse 
Defense 
(GMD) interceptors in Alaska and California to de-
fend against potential long-range missiles from 
rogue states such as North Korea. 
(3) Congress has fully funded the President’s 
budget request for the GMD sites in Alaska and 
California in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, as well as 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
continued development of the Standard Missile-3 
Block IIA missile with Japan, which will provide the 
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system the capability 
to engage long-range ballistic missiles like the North 
Korean Taepo Dong-2. 
(4) Senior defense and intelligence officials have 
indicated that the threat to the United States from 
long-range missiles from rogue states is limited. 
(5) Senior military officials have testified that 
the original threat assessments of the long-range 
missile threat made by the Missile Defense Agency 
in 2002 were ‘‘off by a factor of 10 or 20’’. 
(6) It is imperative that missile defense force 
structure and inventory be linked to the most likely 
threats and validated military requirements. 
(7) The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs, the Commander of the United 
States Strategic Command’s Joint Functional Com-
ponent Command for Integrated Missile Defense, 
and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency have 
either testified or stated that 30 operationally de-
ployed GMD interceptors would be adequate to de-
fend against any rogue missile threat to the United 
States in the near- to mid-term. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
(8) The Director of the Missile Defense Agency 
testified that, for the first time since the establish-
ment of the Missile Defense Agency in 2002, key 
elements of the Department of Defense, such as the 
combatant commanders and the military services, 
played a major role in shaping the missile defense 
budget for fiscal year 2010. 
(9) There is currently no existing military re-
quirement justifying the need to deploy 44 GMD 
interceptors, nor has that number been validated by 
the Department of Defense’s requirements process. 
(10) In testimony before Congress this year, the 
Director of the Missile Defense Agency indicated 
that a number of GMD interceptors were removed 
from their silos for unscheduled maintenance and re-
furbishment because of unanticipated problems with 
the interceptors were discovered. 
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con-
gress that the United States— 
(1) reaffirms the principles articulated in the 
National Missile Defense Act of 1999; 
(2) should continue to fund robust research, de-
velopment, test, and evaluation of the current GMD 
system deployed in Alaska in California to ensure 
that the system will work in an operationally effec-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
tive, suitable, maintainable, and survivable manner 
to defend the territory of the United States against 
limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, 
unauthorized, or deliberate); 
(3) should continue the development of the 
Standard Missile-3 Block IIA missile with Japan, 
which will provide the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 
system a capability to counter long-range ballistic 
missiles like the North Korean Taepo Dong-2; and 
(4) should set future missile defense force 
structure and inventory requirements based on a 
clear linkage to the threat and the military require-
ments process that takes into account the views of 
key Department of Defense stakeholders such as the 
combatant commanders and the military services. 
SEC. 225. ASCENT PHASE MISSILE DEFENSE STRATEGY. 
(a) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STRATEGY FOR AS-
CENT PHASE MISSILE DEFENSE.—Not later than 180 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec-
retary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense 
committees a strategy for ascent phase missile defense. 
(b) MATTERS INCLUDED.—The strategy required by 
subsection (a) shall include each of the following: 
(1) A description of the programs and activities 
contained, as of the date of the submission of the 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
strategy, in the program of record of the Missile De-
fense Agency that provide or are planned to provide 
a capability to intercept ballistic missiles in their as-
cent phase. 
(2) A description of the capabilities that are 
needed to accomplish the intercept of ballistic mis-
siles in their ascent phase, including— 
(A) the key technologies and associated 
technology readiness levels, plans for maturing 
such technologies, and any technology dem-
onstrations for such capabilities; 
(B) concepts of operation for how ascent 
phase capabilities would be employed, including 
the dependence of such capabilities on, and in-
tegration with, other functions, capabilities, and 
information, including those provided by other 
elements of the ballistic missile defense system; 
(C) the criteria to be used to assess the 
technical progress, suitability, and effectiveness 
of such capabilities; 
(D) a comprehensive plan for development 
and investment in such capabilities, including 
an identification of specific program and tech-
nology investments to be made in such capabili-
ties; 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
(E) a description of how, and to what ex-
tent, ascent phase missile defense can leverage 
the capabilities and investments made in boost 
phase, midcourse, and any other layer or ele-
ments of the ballistic missile defense system; 
(F) a description of any other challenges 
or limitations associated with ascent phase mis-
sile defense; and 
(G) any other information the Secretary 
determines is necessary. 
(c) FORM.—The strategy shall be submitted in un-
classified form, but may include a classified annex. 
SEC. 226. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR A MISSILE DE-
FENSE 
SYSTEM 
FOR 
EUROPE 
AND 
THE 
UNITED STATES. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find-
ings: 
(1) Missile defense promotes the collective secu-
rity of the United States and NATO and improves 
linkages among member nations of NATO by de-
fending all members of NATO against the full range 
of missile threats. 
(2) The Islamic Republic of Iran possesses the 
largest inventory of short-and medium-range ballistic 
missiles in the Middle East and these missiles rep-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
resent a threat to Europe and United States inter-
ests and deployed forces in the region. Neither 
NATO nor the United States currently possesses 
sufficient theater missile defense capability to 
counter this threat from Iran. 
(3) Iran does not currently possess a long-range 
ballistic missile capable of reaching the United 
States and, if it were to develop such a capability in 
the near future, the long-range Ground-based Mid-
course Defense (GMD) interceptors currently de-
ployed in Alaska have sufficient range to protect the 
United States against an emerging threat. 
(4) It is in the interest of the United States to 
work cooperatively with NATO to counter these 
threats consistent with the direction provided in the 
statement by the Heads of State and Government 
participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic 
Council in Strasbourg/Kehl on April 4, 2009, that: 
‘‘we judge that missile threats should be addressed 
in a prioritized manner that includes consideration 
of the level of imminence of the threat and the level 
of acceptable risk.’’. 
(5) The Director of Operational Test and Eval-
uation for the Department of Defense has raised 
concerns about the operational effectiveness, suit-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
ability, and survivability of the current GMD sys-
tem, and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency 
testified before the House Armed Services Com-
mittee on May 21, 2009, that health and status indi-
cators forced the agency to remove several long- 
range interceptors for unscheduled maintenance and 
refurbishment. 
(6) The Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Report to 
Congress by the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation (DOT&E) stated: ‘‘The inherent BDMS 
defensive capability against theater threats increased 
during the last fiscal year and DOT&E expects this 
trend to continue’’ largely due to the continued 
progress of the AEGIS and Terminal High Altitude 
Area Defense (THAAD) systems in operational test-
ing. 
(7) The proposed European locations of the 
long-range missile defense system allow for the de-
fense of both Europe and the United States against 
long-range threats launched from the Middle East, 
but a limited deployment of GMD interceptors on 
the east coast of the United States would provide 
comparable defense of our homeland and the most 
pressing threat to Europe is from medium-range bal-
listic missiles. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
(b) RESERVATION OF FUNDS.—Of the funds made 
available for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 for the Missile 
Defense Agency for the purpose of developing missile de-
fenses in Europe, $353,100,000 shall be available only for 
a missile defense system for Europe and the United States 
as described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (c). 
(c) USE OF FUNDS.—Funds reserved under sub-
section (b) may be obligated and expended by the Sec-
retary of Defense— 
(1) on the research, development, test, and eval-
uation of— 
(A) the proposed midcourse radar element 
of the ground-based midcourse defense system 
in the Czech Republic; and 
(B) the proposed long-range missile de-
fense interceptor site element of such defense 
system in Poland; or 
(2) on the research, development, test, and eval-
uation, procurement, site activation, construction, 
preparation of, equipment for, or deployment of an 
alternative integrated missile defense system that 
would protect Europe and the United States from 
the threats posed by all types of ballistic missiles, if 
the Secretary submits to the congressional defense 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
committees a report certifying that the alternative 
missile defense system is expected to be— 
(A) consistent with the direction of the 
North Atlantic Council to address ballistic mis-
sile threats to Europe and the United States in 
a prioritized manner that includes consideration 
of the level of imminence of the threat and the 
level of acceptable risk; 
(B) at least as cost-effective, technically re-
liable, and operationally available in protecting 
Europe and the United States from missile 
threats as the ground-based midcourse defense 
system described in paragraph (1); 
(C) deployable in a sufficient amount of 
time to counter current and emerging ballistic 
missile threats (as determined by the intel-
ligence community) launched from the Middle 
East that could threaten Europe and the 
United States; and 
(D) interoperable with other components of 
missile defense and compliments NATO’s mis-
sile defense strategy. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
SEC. 227. STUDY ON DISCRIMINATION CAPABILITIES OF 
MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM. 
(a) STUDY.—The Secretary of Defense shall enter 
into an arrangement with the JASON Defense Advisory 
Panel under which JASON shall carry out a study on the 
technical and scientific feasibility of the discrimination ca-
pabilities of the missile defense system of the United 
States, as such system is designed and conceived as of the 
date of the study. 
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit 
to the appropriate congressional committees a report on 
the study. 
(c) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DE-
FINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘appropriate congres-
sional committees’’ means the following: 
(1) The Committees on Armed Services, Appro-
priations, and Oversight and Government Reform of 
the House of Representatives. 
(2) The Committees on Armed Services, Appro-
priations, and Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs of the Senate. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
SEC. 228. SENSE OF CONGRESS REAFFIRMING THE RE-
QUIREMENT 
TO 
THOROUGHLY 
CONSIDER 
THE ROLE OF BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSES 
DURING THE QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE RE-
VIEW AND THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find-
ings: 
(1) Congress passed and the President signed 
the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (Public 
Law 106–38), which stated: ‘‘It is the policy of the 
United States to deploy as soon as is technologically 
possible an effective National Missile Defense system 
capable of defending the territory of the United 
States against limited ballistic missile attack (wheth-
er accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate).’’. 
(2) Section 118 of title 10, United States Code 
requires the Secretary of Defense ‘‘every four years, 
during a year following a year evenly divisible by 
four, to conduct a comprehensive examination (to be 
known as a ‘Quadrennial Defense Review’) of the 
national defense strategy, force structure, force mod-
ernization plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and 
other elements of the defense program and policies 
of the United States with a view toward determining 
and expressing the defense strategy of the United 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
States and establishing a defense program for the 
next 20 years.’’. 
(3) Among the requirements established by sec-
tion 118 of title 10, United States Code, for the ele-
ments that must be included in the Quadrennial De-
fense Review are the following: 
(A) The threats to the assumed or defined 
national security interests of the United States 
that were examined for the purposes of the re-
view and the scenarios developed in the exam-
ination of those threats. 
(B) The specific capabilities, including the 
general number and type of specific military 
platforms, needed to achieve the strategic and 
warfighting objectives identified in the review. 
(C) The effect on force structure of the use 
by the armed forces of technologies anticipated 
to be available for the ensuing 20 years. 
(4) Section 1070 of the National Defense Au-
thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 
110–116) requires the Secretary of Defense to con-
duct a comprehensive review of the nuclear posture 
of the United States for the next 5 to 10 years ‘‘in 
order to clarify United States nuclear deterrence pol-
icy and strategy for the near term.’’. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
(5) Among the requirements established by sec-
tion 1070 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008 for the elements that must be 
included in the nuclear posture review is ‘‘[t]he role 
that missile defense capabilities and conventional 
strike forces play in determining the role and size of 
nuclear forces.’’. 
(6) The Final Report of the Congressional 
Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United 
States, issued on May 7, 2009, concluded: ‘‘Missile 
defenses can play a useful role in supporting the 
basic objectives of deterrence, broadly defined. De-
fenses that are effective against regional aggressors 
are a valuable component of the U.S. strategic pos-
ture. The United States should develop and, where 
appropriate, deploy missile defenses against regional 
nuclear aggressors, including against limited long- 
range threats. These can also be beneficial for lim-
iting damage if deterrence fails. The United States 
should ensure that its actions do not lead Russia or 
China to take actions that increase the threat to the 
United States and its allies and friends.’’. 
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con-
gress that the Secretary of Defense should thoroughly con-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
sider the role of ballistic missile defenses during the Quad-
rennial Defense Review and the Nuclear Posture Review. 
Subtitle D—Reports 
SEC. 231. COMPTROLLER GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF CO-
ORDINATION OF ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE 
REQUIREMENTS AND INVESTMENTS. 
(a) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.—The Comptroller Gen-
eral shall conduct an assessment of the degree to which 
requirements, technology goals, and research and procure-
ment investments in energy storage technologies are co-
ordinated within and among the military departments, ap-
propriate Defense Agencies, and other elements of the De-
partment of Defense. In carrying out such assessment, the 
Comptroller General shall— 
(1) assess expenses incurred by the Department 
of Defense in the research, development, testing, and 
procurement of energy storage devices; 
(2) compare quantities of types of devices in 
use or under development that rely on commercial 
energy storage technologies and that use military- 
unique, proprietary, or specialty devices; 
(3) assess the process by which a determination 
is made by an acquisition official of the Department 
of Defense to pursue a commercially available or 
custom-made energy storage device; 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
(4) assess the coordination of Department of 
Defense-wide activities in energy storage device re-
search, development, and use; 
(5) assess whether there is a need for enhanced 
standardization of the form, fit, and function of en-
ergy storage devices, and if so, formulate a rec-
ommendation as to how, from an organizational 
standpoint, the Department should address that 
need; and 
(6) assess whether there are commercial ad-
vances in portable power technology, including hy-
brid systems, fuel cells, and electrochemical capaci-
tors, that could be better leveraged by the Depart-
ment. 
(b) REPORT.—Not later than March 1, 2010, the 
Comptroller General shall submit to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representa-
tives a report on the findings and recommendations of the 
Comptroller General with respect to the assessment con-
ducted under subsection (a). 
(c) COORDINATION.—In carrying out subsection (a), 
the Comptroller General shall coordinate with the Sec-
retary of Energy and the heads of other appropriate Fed-
eral agencies. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
SEC. 232. ANNUAL COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON 
THE F–35 LIGHTNING II AIRCRAFT ACQUISI-
TION PROGRAM. 
(a) ANNUAL GAO REVIEW.—The Comptroller Gen-
eral shall conduct an annual review of the F–35 Lightning 
II aircraft acquisition program and shall, not later than 
March 15 of each of 2010 through 2015, submit to the 
congressional defense committees a report on the results 
of the most recent review. 
(b) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.—Each report on the 
F–35 program under subsection (a) shall include each of 
the following: 
(1) The extent to which the acquisition program 
is meeting development and procurement cost, 
schedule, and performance goals. 
(2) The progress and results of developmental 
and operational testing and plans for correcting defi-
ciencies in aircraft performance, operational effec-
tiveness, and suitability. 
(3) Aircraft procurement plans, production re-
sults, and efforts to improve manufacturing effi-
ciency and supplier performance. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
HR 2647 PCS 
‘‘(6) encourage research and educational col-
laborations between such institutions and other in-
stitutions of higher education; or 
‘‘(7) encourage research and educational col-
laborations between such institutions and business 
enterprises that historically perform defense-related 
research, development, testing and evaluation. 
‘‘(c) ASSISTANCE PROVIDED.—Under the program 
established by subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense 
may provide covered educational institutions with funding 
or technical assistance, including any of the following: 
‘‘(1) The competitive awarding of grants, coop-
erative agreements or contracts to establish Centers 
of Excellence for Research and Education in sci-
entific disciplines important to national defense, as 
determined by the Secretary. 
‘‘(2) The competitive awarding of under-
graduate scholarships or graduate fellowships in 
support of research in scientific disciplines important 
to national defense, as determined by the Secretary. 
‘‘(3) The competitive awarding of grants, coop-
erative agreements, or contracts for research in 
areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathe-
matics that are important to national defense, as de-
termined by the Secretary. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
690 
HR 2647 PCS 
of such subsection. The monthly report under such para-
graph shall include the following with regard to the pro-
posed transaction: 
‘‘(A) A description of the proposed transaction, 
including the proposed duration of the lease or li-
cense. 
‘‘(B) A description of the authorities to be used 
in entering into the transaction and the intended 
participation of the United States in the lease or li-
cense, including a justification of the intended meth-
od of participation. 
‘‘(C) A statement of the scored cost of the 
transaction, determined using the scoring criteria of 
the Office of Management and Budget. 
‘‘(D) A determination that the property in-
volved in the transaction is not excess property, as 
required by section 2667(a)(3) of this title, including 
the basis for the determination. 
‘‘(E) A determination that the proposed trans-
action is directly compatible with the mission of the 
military installation or Defense Agency at which the 
property is located and a description of the antici-
pated long-term use of the property at the conclu-
sion of the lease or license. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
23:17 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00690
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2647.PCS
H2647
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS