SEC. 231. ACQUISITION ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTS ON THE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM.
(a) BASELINEREQUIRED.—
(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 ballistic mis-sile 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 missile 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 baseline required by paragraph (1) before the date on which the program element or major subprogram enters—
‘‘(A) engineering and manufacturing development (or its equivalent); and
‘‘(B) production and deployment.
‘‘(3) Except as provided by subsection (d), the Director may not adjust or revise an acquisition baseline established under this section.
‘‘(b) ELEMENTS OF BASELINES.—Each acquisition baseline required by subsection (a) for a program element or major subpro-gram shall include the following:
‘‘(1) A comprehensive schedule, including—
‘‘(A) research and development milestones;
‘‘(B) acquisition milestones, including design 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 acquisition 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, including hardware and software;
‘‘(B) system requirements, including performance requirements;
‘‘(C) how the proposed capability satisfies a capability identified by the commanders of the combatant commands on a prioritized capabilities list;
‘‘(D) key knowledge points that must be achieved to permit continuation of the program and to inform produc-tion and deployment decisions; and
‘‘(E) how the Director plans to improve the capability over time.
‘‘(3) A cost estimate, including—
‘‘(A) a life-cycle cost estimate that separately identifies the costs regarding research and development, procure-ment, military construction, operations and sustainprocure-ment, and disposal;
‘‘(B) program acquisition unit costs for the program element;
‘‘(C) average procurement unit costs and program acquisition costs for the program element; and
‘‘(D) an identification of when the document regarding the program joint cost analysis requirements description is scheduled to be approved.
‘‘(4) A test baseline summarizing the comprehensive test program for the program element or major subprogram outlined in the integrated master test plan.
‘‘(c) ANNUAL REPORTS ON ACQUISITION BASELINES.—(1) Not later than February 15 of each year, the Director shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the acquisition baselines required by subsection (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 subprogram; and
‘‘(ii) with respect to an acquisition baseline that was pre-viously included in a report under paragraph (1), an identifica-tion 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 program element or major subprogram that was submitted in the report during the previous year.
‘‘(3) Each report under this subsection shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
‘‘(d) EXCEPTION TOLIMITATION ONREVISION.—The Director may adjust or revise an acquisition baseline established under this sec-tion if the Director submits to the congressional defense committees notification of—
‘‘(1) a justification for such adjustment or revision;
‘‘(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 sections 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) CONFORMINGAMENDMENTS.—
(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. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF MIS-SILE DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.
(a) COMPTROLLERGENERALASSESSMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Comptroller General of the United States shall review the annual reports submitted under section 225(c) of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 231 of this Act, that cover any of fiscal years 2012 through 2015 and assess the extent to which the Missile Defense Agency has achieved its acquisition goals and objectives.
(2) REPORTS.—Not later than March 15, 2013, and each year thereafter through 2016, the Comptroller General shall submit 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 defense
acquisition programs and accountability therefore that the Comptroller General considers appropriate.
(b) ANNUAL REPORTS ON MISSILE DEFENSE EXECUTIVE BOARD
ACTIVITIES.—In each of the first three reports submitted under section 225(c) of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 231 of this Act, the Director shall include a description of the activities of the Missile Defense Executive Board during the fiscal year preceding the date of the report, including the following:
(1) A list of each meeting of the Board during such year.
(2) The agenda and issues considered at each such meeting.
(3) A description of any decisions or recommendations made by the Board at each such meeting.
(c) REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED REPORTING AUTHORITY.—Section 232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107; 115 Stat. 1037; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note) is amended by striking subsection (g).
SEC. 233. HOMELAND DEFENSE HEDGING POLICY AND STRATEGY.
(a) REPORTREQUIRED.—In light of the homeland missile defense hedging policy and strategy framework described in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review of 2010, not later than 75 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the results of the missile defense hedging strategy review for the protec-tion of the homeland of the United States.
(b) ELEMENTS.—The report under subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) A description of the findings and conclusions of the strategy review.
(2) A description of the hedging alternatives and capabili-ties considered by the Secretary.
(3) A summary of the analyses conducted, including the criteria used to assess the alternatives and capabilities described in paragraph (2).
(4) A detailed description of the plans, programs, and the budget profile for implementing the strategy through the future years defense program submitted to Congress under section 221 of title 10, United States Code, with the budget of the President for fiscal year 2013.
(5) The criteria to be used in determining whether and when each item contained in the strategy should be mented and the schedule and budget profile required to imple-ment each item.
(6) A discussion of the feasibility and advisability of deploying a missile defense site on the East Coast of the United States.
(7) Any other information the Secretary considers nec-essary.
(c) FORM.—The report under subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
SEC. 234. GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE DEFENSE PROGRAM.
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) it is essential for the ground-based midcourse 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 ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate);
(2) the Missile Defense Agency should, as its highest pri-ority, determine the root cause of the December 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 effective and will allow the ground-based midcourse defense system to reach levels described in paragraph (1);
(3) after the Missile Defense Agency has verified the correc-tion of the problem causing the December 2010 flight-test failure, including through the two previously 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
(4) the Department of Defense should plan for and budget sufficient future funds for the ground-based midcourse defense program to ensure the ability to complete and verify an effective correction of the problem causing the December 2010 flight- test failure, to mitigate the effects of corrective actions on previously planned program work that is deferred as a result of such corrective actions, and to enhance the program over time.
(b) REPORTS.—
(1) REPORTS REQUIRED.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and one year thereafter, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report describing the plan of the Depart-ment of Defense to correct the problem causing the December 2010 flight-test failure of the ground-based midcourse defense system, and any progress toward the achievement of that plan.
(2) ELEMENTS.—Each report required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) A detailed discussion of the plan to correct the problem described in that paragraph, including plans for diagnostic, design, testing, and manufacturing actions.
(B) A detailed discussion of any results obtained from the plan described in subparagraph (A) as of the date of such report, including diagnostic, design, testing, or manufacturing results.
(C) A description of any cost or schedule impact of the plan on the ground-based midcourse defense program, including on testing, production, refurbishment, or deferred work.
(D) A description of any planned adjustments to the ground-based midcourse defense program as a result of the implementation of the plan, including future pro-grammatic, 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 pursuant 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. 235. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM.
(a) LIMITATION.—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, not more than 25 percent may be obligated or expended until the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a plan to use such funds as final obligations under such program for either—
(1) implementing a restructured program of reduced scope;
or
(2) contract termination liability costs with respect to the contracts covering the program.
(b) ELEMENTS.—The plan under subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) The plan of the Secretary for using funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2012 for the medium extended air defense system program for the purposes described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a).
(2) An explanation of the amount of the total cost for which the United States would be liable with respect to either—
(A) restructuring the program as described in such paragraph (1); or
(B) terminating the contracts covering the program, either unilaterally or multilaterally, as described in such paragraph (2).
(3) An explanation of the terms of any agreement with Germany or Italy (or both) with respect to program restruc-turing or contract termination.
(4) A description of the program schedule and specific ele-ments of a restructured program to develop, test, and evaluate technologies for possible incorporation into future air and mis-sile defense architectures of the United States.
(5) A description of the specific technologies identified by the Secretary for possible incorporation into future air and missile defense architectures of the United States.
(6) A description of how the Secretary plans to address the future air and missile defense requirements of the Depart-ment of Defense in the absence of a fielded medium extended air defense system capability, including a summary of activities, the cost estimate, and the funding profile necessary to sustain and upgrade the Patriot air and missile defense system.
(c) REPORTREQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report providing a detailed description of the efforts the Secretary has made with Germany and Italy, including any involvement by the Secretary of State, to agree on ways to minimize the costs to each nation of implementing a restructured program or of unilateral or multilat-eral contract termination.
SEC. 236. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TRAINING.
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) progress has been made in improving the integration of ballistic missile defense training across and between combat-ant commands and military services and identifying the training requirements, capabilities, and resources that the Department of Defense needs for this complex mission that is vital to the protection of the United States and its deployed forces and allies against ballistic missile attacks;
(2) it is important to continue effective and integrated missile defense training to improve the capabilities of the bal-listic missile defense system and its elements; and
(3) the Department of Defense should continue to identify the capabilities and resources needed to effectively and ade-quately integrate training across and between the combatant commands and military services and should continue efforts to improve such training.