SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Security and 
Job Protection Act’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
Congress finds the following: 
(1) Current law requires that there be across- 
the-board cuts, known as a ‘‘sequester’’, imposed on 
January 2, 2013. The sequester will result in a 10 
percent reduction in non-military personnel pro-
grams of the Department of Defense and an 8 per-
cent reduction in certain domestic programs, such as 
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and border 
security. 
(2) Intended as a mechanism to force action, 
there is bipartisan agreement that the sequester 
going into place would undercut key responsibilities 
of the Federal Government. 
(3) As the Administration stated in its fiscal 
year 2013 budget request, ‘‘[Sequestration] would 
lead to significant cuts to critical domestic programs 
such as education and research and cuts to defense 
programs that could undermine our national secu-
rity. * * * [C]uts of this magnitude done in an 
across-the-board fashion would be devastating both 
to defense and non-defense programs.’’ (The Budget
of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013, 
p. 24, February 13, 2012). 
(4) On March 29, 2012, The House of Rep-
resentatives passed H. Con. Res. 112, the budget 
resolution for fiscal year 2013, which includes rec-
onciliation instructions directing House Committees 
to craft legislation that would achieve the savings re-
quired to replace the sequestration called for in fis-
cal year 2013, as established by the Budget Control 
Act of 2011. 
(5) On May 10, 2012, the House of Represent-
atives passed H.R. 5652, the Sequestration Replace-
ment Reconciliation Act of 2012, which would re-
place the $98 billion sequestration of discretionary 
spending called for in 2013, as established by the 
Budget Control Act of 2011, by making changes in 
law to reduce direct spending by $310 billion 
through fiscal year 2022. 
(6) An analysis of the impact of the sequestra-
tion prepared for the Chairman of the House Armed 
Services Committee found that if left in place, se-
questration would cut the military to its smallest 
size since before the Second World War, all while we 
are still a nation at war in Afghanistan, facing in-
creased threats from Iran and North Korea, unrest 
in the Middle East, and a rising China. 
(7) Major consequences identified by the House 
Armed Services Committee include the following: 
(A) 200,000 soldiers and Marines sepa-
rated from service, bringing our force well 
below our pre-9/11 levels. 
(B) Ability to respond to contingencies in 
North Korea or Iran at jeopardy. 
(C) The smallest ground force since 1940. 
(D) A fleet of fewer than 230 ships, the 
smallest level since 1915. 
(E) The smallest tactical fighter force in 
the history of the Air Force. 
(F) Our nuclear triad that has kept the 
U.S. and 30 of our allies safe for decades will 
be in jeopardy. 
(G) Reductions of 20 percent in defense ci-
vilian personnel. 
(H) Two BRAC rounds of base closings. 
(House Armed Services Committee memo enti-
tled ‘‘Assessment of Impacts of Budget Cuts’’, 
September 22, 2011).
(8) Secretary Panetta and the professional mili-
tary leadership have also looked at the impact of se-
questration and reached similar conclusions. 
(9) Secretary Panetta stated, ‘‘If the maximum 
sequestration is triggered, the total cut will rise to 
about $1 trillion compared with the FY 2012 plan. 
The impacts of these cuts would be devastating for 
the Department * * * Facing such large reductions, 
we would have to reduce the size of the military 
sharply. Rough estimates suggest after ten years of 
these cuts, we would have the smallest ground force 
since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, 
and the smallest Air Force in its history.’’ (Sec-
retary Panetta, Letter to Senator John McCain, No-
vember 14, 2011). 
(10) General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, stated, ‘‘[S]equestration leaves me 
three places to go to find the additional money: op-
erations, maintenance, and training. That’s the defi-
nition of a hollow force.’’. 
(11) The individual branch service chiefs echoed 
General Dempsey: 
(A) ‘‘Cuts of this magnitude would be cat-
astrophic to the military * * * My assessment 
is that the nation would incur an unacceptable
level of strategic and operational risk.’’—Gen-
eral Ray T. Odierno, Chief Of Staff, United 
States Army. 
(B) ‘‘A severe and irreversible impact on 
the Navy’s future’’—Admiral Jonathan W. 
Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations. 
(C) ‘‘A Marine Corps below the end 
strength that’s necessary to support even one 
major contingency,’’—General James F. Amos, 
Commandant of the Marine Corps. 
(D) ‘‘Even the most thoroughly deliberated 
strategy may not be able to overcome dire con-
sequences,’’—General Norton A. Schwartz, 
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force (Testi-
mony of Service Chief before House Armed 
Services Committee, November 2, 2011). 
(12) According to an analysis by the House Ap-
propriations Committee, the sequester will also have 
a significant impact on non-defense discretionary 
programs, including the following: 
(A) Automatically reducing Head Start by 
$650 million, resulting in 75,000 fewer slots for 
children in the program. 
(B) Automatically reducing the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) by $2.4 billion, an
amount equal to nearly half of total NIH 
spending on cancer this year. 
(C) A reduction of approximately 1,870 
Border Patrol Agents (a reduction of nearly 9 
percent of the total number of agents). 
(13) Beyond the negative impacts sequestration 
will have on defense readiness, it will also undermine 
the industrial base needed to equip our armed forces 
with the weapons and technology they need to com-
plete their mission. A study released by the National 
Association of Manufacturers suggests that 1.1 mil-
lion workers in the supply chain could be adversely 
affected, including 3.4 percent of workers in the 
aerospace industry, 3.3 percent of the workforce in 
the shipbuilding industry and 10 percent of the 
workers in the search and navigation equipment in-
dustry. 
SEC. 3. CONDITIONAL REPLACEMENT FOR FY 2013 SEQUES-
TER. 
(a) CONTINGENT EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section 
and the amendments made by it shall take effect upon 
the enactment of— 
(1) the Act contemplated in section 201 of H. 
Con. Res. 112 (112th Congress) that achieves at