[House Report 113-446]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 113-446
_______________________________________________________________________
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
----------
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 4435
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
May 13, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
113th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 113-446
_______________________________________________________________________
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 4435
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
May 13, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-824 WASHINGTON : 2014
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Thirteenth Congress
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JEFF MILLER, Florida ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JOE WILSON, South Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
ROB BISHOP, Utah RICK LARSEN, Washington
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia Georgia
DUNCAN HUNTER, California COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana JACKIE SPEIER, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado RON BARBER, Arizona
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada DEREK KILMER, Washington
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi SCOTT H. PETERS, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
PAUL COOK, California TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Purpose of the Legislation....................................... 1
Rationale for the Committee Bill................................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 9
Committee Position............................................... 9
Explanation of the Committee Amendments.......................... 9
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 9
Summary of Discretionary Authorizations in the Bill.............. 9
Budget Authority Implication..................................... 10
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS................. 11
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 11
OVERVIEW....................................................... 11
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 11
Overview................................................... 11
Items of Special Interest.................................. 11
Armed aerial scout strategy.............................. 11
Army Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
aircraft............................................... 12
Army Signals Intelligence modernization.................. 12
Divestiture of rotorcraft through Army's Aviation
Restructure Initiative................................. 12
Improved MQ-1C Gray Eagle modifications.................. 13
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 13
Overview................................................... 13
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army..... 13
Overview................................................... 13
Items of Special Interest.................................. 14
Combat vehicle industrial base management................ 14
Abrams tank upgrades................................... 15
Hercules recovery vehicle.............................. 16
Stryker combat vehicle modifications................... 16
M9 upgrades.............................................. 17
Transmission industrial base............................. 17
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.............................. 18
Overview................................................... 18
Items of Special Interest.................................. 18
Munitions industrial base management..................... 18
M982 Excalibur program................................... 19
Utilization of Armament Retooling and Manufacturing
Support initiative..................................... 19
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 20
Overview................................................... 20
Items of Special Interest.................................. 20
Army ultra-light reconnaissance robot programs........... 20
Body armor industrial base risk mitigation............... 21
Tactical generator recapitalization...................... 22
Family of heavy tactical vehicles........................ 22
Family of medium tactical vehicles....................... 22
Military combat eye protection program................... 23
Mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles................. 24
Personal dosimetry for protection in Chemical Biological
Radiological Nuclear and Explosive environments........ 24
Replacement of Enhanced Position Location Reporting
system................................................. 25
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 26
Overview................................................... 26
Items of Special Interest.................................. 26
EA-18G Stretch........................................... 26
H-1 engine program upgrade............................... 26
MQ-8 Fire Scout.......................................... 27
MV-22 carrier onboard delivery........................... 27
UH-1 Mobile Aircrew Restraint System retrofits........... 27
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 28
Overview................................................... 28
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps............. 28
Overview................................................... 28
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 28
Overview................................................... 28
Items of Special Interest.................................. 28
Integrated communication systems......................... 28
Joint High Speed Vessel.................................. 29
Littoral Combat Ship..................................... 29
Mobile Landing Platform Afloat Forward Staging Base...... 30
Moored Training Ship..................................... 30
National Defense Sealift Fund............................ 30
Shipbuilding warranties and guarantees................... 31
Surface ship test platform............................... 31
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 32
Overview................................................... 32
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 32
Overview................................................... 32
Items of Special Interest.................................. 32
Marine Corps Video Scout MC/3 System..................... 32
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 32
Overview................................................... 32
Items of Special Interest.................................. 33
Air National Guard MQ-1/MQ-9 ground-based sense and avoid
systems................................................ 33
Battlefield Airborne Communications Node program......... 33
C-130H Avionics Modernization Program and propulsion
system upgrades........................................ 33
F-16 block 40/50 mission training centers................ 35
F-16 modernization....................................... 35
High-altitude intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance......................................... 36
KC-10 Aerial Refueling Aircraft Force Structure.......... 37
KC-46 Aerial Refueling Aircraft program.................. 38
Spare engine requirements and inventory for F-15E and F-
16 aircraft............................................ 39
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force......................... 39
Overview................................................... 39
Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 39
Overview................................................... 39
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 39
Overview................................................... 39
Items of Special Interest.................................. 40
Air Force explosive ordnance disposal unmanned systems
repairs and upgrades................................... 40
Aircraft tug vehicles.................................... 40
Beyond line of sight command and control for
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems. 40
Emergency Airfield Lighting System....................... 41
Joint threat emitter procurement......................... 41
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 41
Overview................................................... 41
Items of Special Interest.................................. 42
Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and U.S.-
based coproduction..................................... 42
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 43
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 43
Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations............... 43
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 43
Section 111--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Airborne Reconnaissance Low Aircraft..................... 43
Section 112--Plan on Modernization of UH-60A Aircraft of
Army National Guard...................................... 44
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 44
Section 121--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Tomahawk
Block IV Missiles........................................ 44
Section 122--Construction of San Antonio Class Amphibious
Ship..................................................... 44
Section 123--Additional Oversight Requirements for the
Undersea Mobility Acquisition Program of the United
States Special Operations Command........................ 44
Section 124--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Moored
Training Ship Program.................................... 44
Section 125--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Mission Modules for Littoral Combat Ship................. 44
Section 126--Extension of Limitation on Availability of
Funds for Littoral Combat Ship........................... 45
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 45
Section 131--Prohibition on Cancellation or Modification of
Avionics Modernization Program for C-130 Aircraft........ 45
Section 132--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for
Retirement of A-10 Aircraft.............................. 45
Section 133--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Retirement of U-2 Aircraft............................... 46
Section 134--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Divestment or Transfer of KC-10 Aircraft................. 46
Section 135--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Divestment of E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System
Aircraft................................................. 46
Subtitle E--Defense-wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters.... 46
Section 141--Comptroller General Report on F-35 Aircraft
Acquisition Program...................................... 46
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 47
OVERVIEW....................................................... 47
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army............ 47
Overview................................................... 47
Items of Special Interest.................................. 47
Active protective system................................. 47
Applied Communication Information Network................ 47
Combat feeding research and development.................. 48
Combat identification for dismounted users............... 48
Dual mode tactical missiles.............................. 49
Electronic Warfare Advanced Technology................... 49
Expeditionary communications............................. 50
Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment............ 50
High explosive guided mortar program..................... 50
High Performance Computing Modernization program......... 51
Improved Turbine Engine Program.......................... 52
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile program...................... 52
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle............................. 53
Lightweight segmented tactical ladders................... 53
Non-invasive medical diagnostic tools.................... 54
Operational testing of High Energy Laser Mobile
Demonstrator........................................... 54
Rotorcraft hostile fire protection....................... 54
Small Airborne Networking Radio program.................. 55
Soldier protection system and weight reduction for
personnel protection equipment......................... 55
Stryker Vehicle Survivability Upgrades................... 56
Transparent armor technology development................. 56
UH-72 Helicopter health monitoring system................ 57
Universal tactical controller for unmanned systems....... 57
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy............ 58
Overview................................................... 58
Items of Special Interest.................................. 58
Amphibious Combat Vehicle increment 1.1 program.......... 58
Briefing on the Navy Laser Weapon System................. 59
Marine Corps Rifle Mounted Optical Systems and
Modifications.......................................... 59
MQ-4C Triton program..................................... 60
Navy deployment of the laser weapon system............... 60
Navy reimbursable work for other Federal agencies........ 61
Next Generation Land Attack and Offensive Anti-Surface
Warfare weapon development............................. 61
Oceanographic research................................... 63
Precision extended range munition program................ 64
Submarine detection research............................. 64
University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System ships 65
Unmanned aerial system electronic attack demonstration... 65
Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike Program 65
Virginia Payload Module program.......................... 67
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force....... 67
Overview................................................... 67
Items of Special Interest.................................. 67
Additive manufacturing................................... 67
Air Force tactical exploitation of national capabilities
talon hate program..................................... 68
Air Force weapons simulation framework................... 68
B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement program................. 69
Common airborne sense and avoid.......................... 69
Cyber operations program elements........................ 69
E-8 Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System
replacement program.................................... 70
EC-130 Compass Call aircraft replacement program......... 71
Ejection seat safety and reliability improvement program. 71
F-35 25mm cannon ammunition.............................. 72
F-35 aircraft program.................................... 72
F-35 block 4 program..................................... 73
Ground Moving Target Indicator Way Ahead................. 74
Metals Affordability Initiative.......................... 75
Nuclear command and control for enduring tanker aircraft. 75
Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization program........... 75
Wide area surveillance................................... 76
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide.... 77
Overview................................................... 77
Items of Special Interest.................................. 77
Analysis of Alternatives for Undersea Clandestine
Insertion of Special Operations Forces................. 77
Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Segment.............. 77
Bioforensic threat detection............................. 78
Biosecurity in Department of Defense research facilities. 78
Capabilities to experimentally study militarily-relevant
High Reynolds Numbers.................................. 79
Chemical Biological Defense Program threat priorities.... 79
Combat helmet test and evaluation protocols.............. 80
Combatant commands and science and technology Communities
of Interest............................................ 80
Combating Terrorism and Technology Support Office........ 81
Conference restrictions for scientists and engineers..... 81
Coordination of efforts for advanced manufacturing of
medical countermeasures................................ 82
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Spectrum
Challenge.............................................. 83
Development of antibiotics against biothreats............ 83
Development of innovative detection and threat
identification technologies............................ 84
Electronic warfare roadmap............................... 84
Expeditionary airfield technology........................ 85
Field-programmable gate arrays for defense............... 85
Future vertical lift..................................... 86
Guidance on utilizing non-profit research institutes..... 86
Health of the research and development enterprise........ 87
High-efficiency, conventional missile propulsion......... 87
Hypersonics research..................................... 88
Internet access on Kwajalein Atoll....................... 88
Leveraging commercial technology for directed energy..... 89
Military service coordination and transition efforts for
the chemical biological defense program................ 89
Minority science and technology programs................. 90
Multi-aircraft control of unmanned aerial vehicles....... 91
Multi-mission airborne radio frequency systems for
unmanned aerial systems................................ 91
National Defense Education Program....................... 91
Neuroplasticity research partnerships.................... 92
Optics and photonics for defense applications............ 92
Prosthesis research...................................... 93
Redesigned Kill Vehicle for Homeland Missile Defense..... 94
Space weather events research............................ 94
Special Operations developmental efforts for Tactical
Assault Light Operator Suit............................ 95
Special Operations Forces Survival, Support, and
Equipment Systems Program Management Office............ 96
Technologies to improve spectrum efficiency.............. 96
Three-dimensional integrated circuits.................... 97
U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation.................. 97
Vaccine research for equine encephalitis................. 98
Validation of near-term counter-electronics capability... 98
Vapor compression cooling systems technology............. 99
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense..................... 100
Overview................................................... 100
Items of Special Interest.................................. 100
Information Assurance and Interoperability Program....... 100
Program reporting and metrics on penetration testing..... 100
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 101
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 101
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations............... 101
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations.............................................. 101
Section 211--Preliminary Design Review of Presidential
Aircraft Recapitalization Program........................ 101
Section 212--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle Program.................... 101
Section 213--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and
Strike System............................................ 102
Section 214--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Airborne Reconnaissance Systems.......................... 102
Section 215--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Weather Satellite Follow-On System....................... 102
Section 216--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Space-
Based Infrared Systems Space Data Exploitation........... 103
Section 217--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Hosted
Payload and Wide Field of View Testbed of the Space-Based
Infrared Systems......................................... 103
Section 218--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Protected Tactical Demonstration and Protected Military
Satellite Communications Testbed of the Advanced
Extremely High Frequency Program......................... 103
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 104
Section 221--Revision to the Service Requirement under the
Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation
Defense Education Program................................ 104
Section 222--Revision of Requirement for Acquisition
Programs to Maintain Defense Research Facility Records... 104
Section 223--Modification to Cost-sharing Requirement for
Pilot Program to Include Technology Protection Features
during Research and Development of Certain Defense
Systems.................................................. 104
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 104
OVERVIEW....................................................... 104
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 106
Budget Request Adjustments................................... 106
Base Realignment and Closure 2018.......................... 106
Corrosion Prevention....................................... 106
Marine Corps Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces. 107
Support for International Sporting Competitions............ 107
Energy Issues................................................ 108
Comptroller General Utilities Disruption and Energy
Security Mandate......................................... 108
Marine Hydrokinetic Technology............................. 109
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Energy Efficiencies............... 109
Logistics and Sustainment Issues............................. 109
Army Workload and Performance System....................... 109
Auditability of Data Used to Measure Depot Maintenance
Workload Distribution.................................... 110
Comptroller General Review of Forward Deployed Naval Forces
and Associated Sustainment Issues........................ 111
Department of Defense Inspector General Determination of
Fair and Reasonable Cost of Spare Parts.................. 112
Eligibility and Performance of Carriers Who Transport
Hazardous Materials for the Department of Defense........ 113
F117 Engine Sustainment Strategy........................... 113
Manufacturing Infrastructure Investment.................... 114
Public-Private Partnerships at Centers of Industrial and
Technical Excellence..................................... 115
Report on the Department of Defense's Transportation of
Hazardous Materials...................................... 115
Report on the Eligibility and Performance of Carriers Who
Transport Security-Sensitive Materials for the Department
of Defense............................................... 116
Submarine Propeller Repair and Overhaul.................... 117
Sustainment of Deployed Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense 117
Readiness Issues............................................. 118
Adequacy of Airlift and Refueling Capabilities in the
Western Pacific.......................................... 118
Advanced Situational Awareness Training Assessment......... 118
Army Aviation Range Safety Improvements.................... 119
Army Aviation Training..................................... 119
Commercially Augmented Tactical Airborne Training.......... 119
Common Range Integrated Instrumentation System............. 120
Comptroller General Report on Readiness Metrics............ 120
Other Matters................................................ 121
Arctic Center of Excellence................................ 121
Army Combat Shirt Fielding Strategy........................ 122
Briefing on Invasive Species Management.................... 122
Cold-Weather Protective Clothing........................... 123
Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense's
Arctic Capabilities...................................... 123
Comptroller General Review of Process for the Disposition
of Excess Defense Articles............................... 124
Office of Net Assessment................................... 125
Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers.... 126
Report on Emerging Technologies for Flame Resistant
Uniforms................................................. 126
Training, Travel, and Conference Restrictions.............. 127
U.S. Special Operations Command National Capital Region
Office................................................... 127
United States Special Operations Command Preservation of
the Force and Families Program........................... 128
United States Special Operations Command Proposed
Sponsorship of U.S. Naval Ship Sumner.................... 129
Waste Disposal Technologies in Contingency Operations...... 130
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 131
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 131
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding............. 131
Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions.............. 131
Section 311--Elimination of Fiscal Year Limitation on
Prohibition of Payment of Fines and Penalties from the
Environmental Restoration Account, Defense............... 131
Section 312--Biannual Certification by Commanders of the
Combatant Commands Relating to the Prohibition on the
Disposal of Waste in Open-Air Burn Pits.................. 131
Section 313--Exclusions from Definition of ``Chemical
Substance'' Under Toxic Substances Control Act and Report
on Lead Ammunition....................................... 131
Section 314--Exemption of Department of Defense from
Alternative Fuel Procurement Requirement................. 132
Section 315--Congressional Notice of Bulk Purchase of
Alternative Fuels for Operational Use.................... 132
Section 316--Limitation on Procurement of Biofuels......... 132
Section 317--Limitation on Plan, Design, Refurbishing, or
Construction of Biofuels Refineries...................... 132
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 132
Section 321--Additional Requirement for Strategic Policy on
Prepositioning of Materiel and Equipment................. 132
Section 322--Comptroller General Reports on Department of
Defense Prepositioning Strategic Policy and Plan for
Prepositioned Stocks..................................... 132
Section 323--Pilot Program on Provision of Logistic Support
for the Conveyance of Excess Defense Articles to Allied
Forces................................................... 132
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 133
Section 331--Repeal of Annual Report on Department of
Defense Operation and Financial Support for Military
Museums.................................................. 133
Section 332--Report on Enduring Requirements and Activities
Currently Funded Through Amounts Authorized to Be
Appropriated for Overseas Contingency Operations......... 133
Section 333--Army Assessment of the Regionally Aligned
Force.................................................... 133
Section 334--Report on Impacts of Funding Reductions on
Military Readiness....................................... 134
Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority.......... 134
Section 341--Limitation on Authority to Enter into a
Contract for the Sustainment, Maintenance, Repair, or
Overhaul of the F117 Engine.............................. 134
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 134
Section 351--Clarification of Authority Relating to
Provision of Installation-Support Services through
Intergovernmental Support Agreements..................... 134
Section 352--Sense of Congress on Access to Training Ranges
within United States Pacific Command Area of
Responsibility........................................... 135
Section 353--Management of Conventional Ammunition
Inventory................................................ 135
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 135
OVERVIEW....................................................... 135
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 136
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 136
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces............... 136
Section 402--Revisions in Permanent Active Duty End
Strength Minimum Levels.................................. 136
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 136
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 136
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 137
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual
Status).................................................. 137
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2015 Limitation on Number of Non-
Dual Status Technicians.................................. 137
Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized
To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support............. 138
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 138
Section 421--Military Personnel............................ 138
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 138
OVERVIEW....................................................... 138
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 139
Analysis for Change in Basic Allowance for Housing......... 139
Arlington National Cemetery Advisory Committee............. 140
Briefing on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response......... 140
Comptroller General Review of Army National Guard
Recruiting Practices..................................... 140
Comptroller General Review of Army Reserve and Army
National Guard Non-Availability for Mobilization......... 141
Comptroller General Review Regarding Department of Defense
and Military Departments Professionalism and Ethics
Programs................................................. 142
Continuum of Service and Reserve Component Duty Statuses... 142
Department of Defense Hair and Grooming Standards.......... 143
Diversity of the Armed Forces.............................. 143
Medal of Honor Process..................................... 143
Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System Firefighting Mission. 144
Recognizing Military Chaplains............................. 144
Report on Need for Uniform Code of Military Justice
Punitive Article......................................... 145
Report on the Sufficiency of Department of Defense Chaplain
Guidance in Response to the Independent Review Related to
Fort Hood................................................ 145
Support to Youth and Charitable Organizations.............. 145
Transition Assistance Program.............................. 145
U.S. Air Force Academy Reductions.......................... 146
U.S. Special Operations Command Education Initiatives...... 146
Unmanned Aerial System Transition of Personnel............. 147
Use of Reserve Officers Training Corps Scholarships to
Increase Cyber Security Expertise........................ 148
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 148
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally............... 148
Section 501--Authority to Limit Consideration for Early
Retirement by Selective Retirement Boards to Particular
Warrant Officer Year Groups and Specialties.............. 148
Section 502--Relief from Limits on the Percentage of
Officers Who May Be Recommended for Discharge during a
Fiscal Year Using Enhanced Authority for Selective Early
Discharges............................................... 148
Section 503--Repeal of Requirement for Submission to
Congress of Annual Reports on Joint Officer Management
and Promotion Policy Objectives for Joint Officers....... 149
Section 504--Options for Phase II of Joint Professional
Military Education....................................... 149
Section 505--Limitation on Number of Enlisted Aides
Authorized for Officers of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps............................................. 149
Section 506--Required Consideration of Certain Elements of
Command Climate in Performance Appraisals of Commanding
Officers................................................. 149
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Personnel Management........... 149
Section 511--Retention on the Reserve Active-Status List
Following Nonselection for Promotion of Certain Health
Professions Officers and First Lieutenants and
Lieutenants (Junior Grade) Pursuing Baccalaureate Degrees 149
Section 512--Chief of the National Guard Bureau Role in
Assignment of Directors and Deputy Directors of the Army
and Air National Guards.................................. 150
Section 513--National Guard Civil and Defense Support
Activities and Related Matters........................... 150
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 150
Section 521--Procedures for Judicial Review of Military
Personnel Decisions Relating to Correction of Military
Records.................................................. 150
Section 522--Additional Required Elements of Transition
Assistance Program....................................... 150
Section 523--Extension of Authority to Conduct Career
Flexibility Programs..................................... 151
Section 524--Provision of Information to Members of the
Armed Forces on Privacy Rights Relating to Receipt of
Mental Health Services................................... 151
Section 525--Protection of the Religious Freedom of
Military Chaplains to Close a Prayer Outside of a
Religious Service According to the Traditions,
Expressions, and Religious Exercises of the Endorsing
Faith Group.............................................. 151
Section 526--Department of Defense Senior Advisor on
Professionalism.......................................... 151
Section 527--Removal of Artificial Barriers to the Service
of Women in the Armed Forces............................. 151
Subtitle D--Military Justice, Including Sexual Assault and
Domestic Violence Prevention and Response................ 152
Section 531--Improved Department of Defense Information
Reporting and Collection of Domestic Violence Incidents
Involving Members of the Armed Forces.................... 152
Section 532--Additional Duty for Judicial Proceedings Panel
Regarding Use of Mental Health Records by Defense during
Preliminary Hearing and Court-Martial Proceedings........ 152
Section 533--Applicability of Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response and Related Military Justice Enhancements to
Military Service Academies............................... 152
Section 534--Consultation with Victims of Sexual Assault
Regarding Victims' Preference for Prosecution of Offense
by Court-Martial or Civilian Court....................... 152
Section 535--Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights Related
to Protections Afforded by Certain Military Rules of
Evidence................................................. 153
Section 536--Minimum Confinement Period Required for
Conviction of Certain Sex-Related Offenses Committed by
Members of the Armed Forces.............................. 153
Section 537--Modification of Military Rules of Evidence
Relating to Admissibility of General Military Character
Toward Probability of Innocence.......................... 153
Section 538--Confidential Review of Characterization of
Terms of Discharge of Members of the Armed Forces Who Are
Victims of Sexual Offenses............................... 153
Section 539--Consistent Application of Rules of Privilege
Afforded Under the Military Rules of Evidence............ 153
Subtitle E--Military Family Readiness........................ 153
Section 545--Earlier Determination of Dependent Status with
Respect to Transitional Compensation for Dependents of
Members Separated for Dependent Abuse.................... 153
Section 546--Improved Consistency in Data Collection and
Reporting in Armed Forces Suicide Prevention Efforts..... 154
Section 547--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for
Parents Who Are Members of the Armed Forces.............. 154
Subtitle F--Education and Training Opportunities............. 154
Section 551--Authorized Duration of Foreign and Cultural
Exchange Activities at Military Service Academies........ 154
Section 552--Pilot Program to Assist Members of the Armed
Forces in Obtaining Post-Service Employment.............. 154
Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education.................... 155
Section 561--Continuation of Authority to Assist Local
Educational Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members
of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian
Employees................................................ 155
Section 562--Authority to Employ Non-United States Citizens
as Teachers in Department of Defense Overseas Dependents'
School System............................................ 155
Section 563--Expansion of Functions of the Advisory Council
on Dependents' Education to Include Domestic Dependent
Elementary and Secondary Schools......................... 155
Section 564--Support for Efforts to Improve Academic
Achievement and Transition of Military Dependent Students 155
Section 565--Amendments to the Impact Aid Improvement Act
of 2012.................................................. 155
Subtitle H--Decorations and Awards........................... 156
Section 571--Medals for Members of the Armed Forces and
Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense Who Were
Killed or Wounded in an Attack Inspired or Motivated by a
Foreign Terrorist Organization........................... 156
Section 572--Retroactive Award of Army Combat Action Badge. 156
Section 573--Report on Navy Review, Findings, and Actions
Pertaining to Medal of Honor Nomination of Marine Corps
Sergeant Rafael Peralta.................................. 156
Subtitle I--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements............. 156
Section 581--Secretary of Defense Review and Report on
Prevention of Suicide Among Members of United States
Special Operations Forces................................ 156
Section 582--Inspector General of the Department of Defense
Review of Separation of Members of the Armed Forces Who
Made Unrestricted Reports of Sexual Assault.............. 157
Section 583--Comptroller General Report Regarding
Management of Personnel Records of Members of the
National Guard........................................... 157
Section 584--Study on Gender Integration in Defense
Operation Planning and Execution......................... 157
Section 585--Deadline for Submission of Report Containing
Results of Review of Office of Diversity Management and
Equal Opportunity Role in Sexual Harassment Cases........ 157
Subtitle J--Other Matters.................................... 158
Section 591--Inspection of Outpatient Residential
Facilities Occupied by Recovering Service Members........ 158
Section 592--Working Group on Integrated Disability
Evaluation System........................................ 158
Section 593--Sense of Congress Regarding Fulfilling Promise
to Leave No Member of the Armed Forces Unaccounted in
Afghanistan.............................................. 158
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 158
OVERVIEW....................................................... 158
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 159
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 159
Section 601--Extension of Authority to Provide Temporary
Increase in Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing Under
Certain Circumstances.................................... 159
Section 602--No Fiscal Year 2015 Increase in Basic Pay for
General and Flag Officers................................ 159
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 159
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces............... 159
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Health Care Professionals.... 160
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus
Authorities for Nuclear Officers......................... 160
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Title 37 Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and
Bonus Authorities........................................ 160
Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Payment of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays....... 160
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation........................ 161
Section 621--Authority to Enter into Contracts for the
Provision of Relocation Services......................... 161
Subtitle D--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentality Benefits and Operations.................. 161
Section 631--Authority of Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities to Enter into Contracts with Other
Federal Agencies and Instrumentalities to Provide and
Obtain Certain Goods and Services........................ 161
Section 632--Review of Management, Food, and Pricing
Options for Defense Commissary System.................... 161
Section 633--Restriction on Implementing Any Department of
Defense Policy to Limit, Restrict, or Ban the Sale of
Certain Items on Military Installations.................. 162
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 162
Section 641--Anonymous Survey of Members of the Armed
Forces Regarding Their Preferences for Military Pay and
Benefits................................................. 162
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 162
OVERVIEW....................................................... 162
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 163
Air Force Critical Care Training........................... 163
Canine Therapy for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and
Traumatic Brain Injury................................... 163
Collaboration on Trauma Research........................... 163
Deployment Health for Women................................ 164
Early Autism Diagnosis and Assistance for Families......... 165
Healthy Base Initiative.................................... 165
Infectious Disease Surveillance Testing.................... 165
Integrated Scheduling System............................... 165
Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs
Healthcare in Colorado Springs........................... 166
Joint Medical Kits......................................... 166
Military and Academic Research Partnership................. 167
Military Contributions to Breast Cancer Research........... 167
Military Health Care Team Model............................ 167
Military Innovations in Suicide Research................... 168
Report on Implementation Plans for the Defense Health
Agency................................................... 168
Review of Defense Health Agency Progress................... 169
Review of TRICARE Reimbursement Rules for Sole Community
Hospitals................................................ 169
Sleep Health............................................... 170
Surgical Critical Care Institute........................... 170
US Family Health Plans..................................... 170
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 171
Subtitle A--TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits........... 171
Section 701--Mental Health Assessments for Members of the
Armed Forces............................................. 171
Section 702--Clarification of Provision of Food to Former
Members and Dependents Not Receiving Inpatient Care in
Military Medical Treatment Facilities.................... 171
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration....................... 171
Section 711--Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between the
Military Departments and Non-Military Health Care
Entities................................................. 171
Section 712--Surveys on Continued Viability of TRICARE
Standard and TRICARE Extra............................... 171
Section 713--Limitation on Transfer or Elimination of
Graduate Medical Education Billets....................... 171
Section 714--Review of Military Health System Modernization
Study.................................................... 172
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 172
Section 721--Extension of Authority for Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund....................................... 172
Section 722--Designation and Responsibilities of Senior
Medical Advisor for Armed Forces Retirement Home......... 172
Section 723--Research Regarding Alzheimer's Disease........ 172
Section 724--Acquisition Strategy for Health Care
Professional Staffing Services........................... 173
Section 725--Pilot Program on Medication Therapy Management
Under TRICARE Program.................................... 173
Section 726--Report on Reduction of Prime Service Areas.... 173
Section 727--Comptroller General Report on Transition of
Care for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic
Brain Injury............................................. 173
Section 728--Briefing on Hospitals in Arrears in Payments
to Department of Defense................................. 173
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS.............................................. 174
OVERVIEW....................................................... 174
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 175
Acquisitions Involving Reverse Auctions.................... 175
Briefing on Impact of Foreign Military Sales and Direct
Commercial Sales on Industrial Base Sustainment.......... 176
Briefing on the Impact of the Budget Control Act on High
Risk Sectors of the Defense Industrial Base.............. 176
Comptroller General Assessment of Department of Defense
Processes for the Acquisition of Services................ 177
Comptroller General Review of Compliance with Limitations
on Contract Services Spending............................ 178
Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Trusted
Foundry and Supply Chain Risk Management Programs........ 179
Comptroller General Review of Rulemaking Practices of the
Department of Defense.................................... 179
Export Controls and the Small Arms Industrial Base......... 180
Independent Assessment of Department of Defense Cloud
Computing Acquisition and Brokerage Policies............. 181
Industrial Base Risks Associated with Negotiated Standards
of Production............................................ 181
Operational Contract Support............................... 182
Rare Earth Elements Supply Chain Review.................... 183
Regional Commercialization Activities...................... 184
Use of National Security Waiver to Specialty Metals Clause. 184
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 185
Subtitle A--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations.............................. 185
Section 801--Extension to United States Transportation
Command of Authorities Relating to Prohibition on
Contracting with the Enemy............................... 185
Section 802--Extension of Contract Authority for Advanced
Component Development or Prototype Units................. 185
Section 803--Amendment Relating to Authority of the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency to Carry Out Certain
Prototype Projects....................................... 185
Section 804--Extension of Limitation on Aggregate Annual
Amount Available for Contract Services................... 185
Subtitle B--Industrial Base Matters.......................... 186
Section 811--Three-Year Extension of and Amendments to Test
Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business
Subcontracting Plans..................................... 186
Section 812--Improving Opportunities for Service-Disabled
Veteran-Owned Small Businesses........................... 187
Section 813--Plan for Improving Data on Bundled and
Consolidated Contracts................................... 187
Section 814--Authority to Provide Education to Small
Businesses on Certain Requirements of Arms Export Control
Act...................................................... 187
Section 815--Prohibition on Reverse Auctions for Covered
Contracts................................................ 188
Section 816--SBA Surety Bond Guarantee..................... 188
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 188
Section 821--Certification of Effectiveness for Air Force
Information Technology Contracting....................... 188
Section 822--Airlift Service............................... 188
Section 823--Compliance with Requirements for Senior
Department of Defense Officials Seeking Employment with
Defense Contractors...................................... 189
Section 824--Procurement of Personal Protective Equipment.. 189
Section 825--Prohibition on Funds for Contracts Violating
Executive Order No. 11246................................ 189
Section 826--Requirement for Policies and Standard
Checklist in Procurement of Services..................... 189
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 190
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 190
Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense
Headquarters Reductions.................................. 190
Comptroller General Review of Operational Test and
Evaluation Processes and Activities...................... 191
Department of Defense Unmanned Systems Office.............. 192
Global Response Force...................................... 192
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 193
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management................. 193
Section 901--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as
the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.............. 193
Section 902--Additional Responsibility for Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation.......................... 193
Section 903--Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment............................ 193
Section 904--Requirement for Congressional Briefing before
Divesting of Defense Finance and Accounting Service
Functions................................................ 193
Section 905--Combatant Command Efficiency Plan............. 194
Section 906--Requirement for Plan to Reduce Geographic
Combatant Commands to Four by Fiscal Year 2020........... 194
Section 907--Office of Net Assessment...................... 194
Section 908--Amendments Relating to Organization and
Management of the Office of the Secretary of Defense..... 195
Section 909--Periodic Review of Department of Defense
Management Headquarters.................................. 195
Subtitle B--Total Force Management........................... 195
Section 911--Modifications to Biennial Strategic Workforce
Plan Relating to Senior Management, Functional, and
Technical Workforce of the Department of Defense......... 195
Section 912--Repeal of Extension of Comptroller General
Report on Inventory...................................... 195
Section 913--Assignment of Certain New Requirements Based
on Determinations of Cost-Efficiency..................... 196
Section 914--Prohibition on Conversion of Functions
Performed by Civilian or Contractor Personnel to
Performance by Military Personnel........................ 196
Section 915--Notification of Compliance with Section
Relating to Procurement of Services...................... 196
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 196
Section 921--Extension of Authority to Waive Reimbursement
of Costs of Activities for Nongovernmental Personnel at
Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security
Studies.................................................. 196
Section 923--Authority to Require Employees of the
Department of Defense and Members of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marine Corps to Occupy Quarters on a Rental
Basis while Performing Official Travel................... 196
Section 924--Single Standard Mileage Reimbursement Rate for
Privately Owned Automobiles of Government Employees and
Members of the Uniformed Services........................ 197
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 197
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 197
Counter-Drug Activities...................................... 197
Afghanistan Counternarcotics Strategy Post-2014............ 197
National Guard Counterdrug Programs........................ 198
U.S. Southern Command Asset Resourcing..................... 198
Other Matters................................................ 199
Army Force Structure....................................... 199
Assessment of Counterfeit Detection Efforts................ 200
Cargo Unmanned Aerial Systems.............................. 201
Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense
Antiterrorism and Force Protection Efforts............... 201
Coordination of Efforts to Track and Counter Weapons of
Mass Destruction......................................... 202
Cross-Service Wargaming Capability......................... 202
Department of Defense Humanitarian Mine Action and
Conventional Munitions Assistance Program................ 203
Department of Defense Installation Security................ 204
Economic Warfare Policy.................................... 204
Force Structure Assessment................................. 205
Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account....................... 206
Information Management Systems for Response Forces......... 207
Inspector General's Report on Over-Classification of
National Security Information............................ 207
Internet Governance........................................ 207
Inventory of Counter Threat Finance Programs and
Capabilities............................................. 208
Military Auxiliary Radio System............................ 208
Nuclear Monitoring and Verification Technologies........... 209
Personnel Protection Equipment Budget Justification
Material................................................. 210
Phased Modernization of Certain Navy Ships................. 210
Recognizing the Importance of Professional Military
Education Concerning Nuclear Deterrence Operations and
Policy................................................... 211
Reconstitution of Air Force Weapons Storage Areas.......... 212
Report on National Commission on the Structure of the Air
Force Recommendations.................................... 212
Review of Military Standard to Protect Systems Against
Electromagnetic Pulse.................................... 213
Security Risks Related to Foreign Investment in the United
States................................................... 214
Spectrum Operations Centers................................ 215
Standing Joint Force Headquarters for Elimination.......... 216
Transfer of Coast Guard HC-130H Aircraft to the Air Force
for U.S. Forest Service Equipment Modifications.......... 216
U.S. Transportation Command Report on Operational and
Tactical Control of All Department of Defense Executive
Airlift Aircraft......................................... 217
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 218
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 218
Section 1001--General Transfer Authority................... 218
Section 1002--Repeal of Limitation on Inspector General
Audits of Certain Financial Statements................... 218
Section 1003--Authority to Transfer Funds to the National
Nuclear Security Administration to Sustain Nuclear
Weapons Modernization and Naval Reactors................. 218
Section 1004--Management of Defense Information Technology
Systems.................................................. 218
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 218
Section 1011--Extension of Authority to Support Unified
Counter-drug and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia... 218
Section 1012--Three-Year Extension of Authority of
Department of Defense to Provide Additional Support for
Counterdrug Activities of Other Governmental Agencies.... 219
Section 1013--Submittal of Biannual Reports on Use of Funds
in the Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities,
Defense-wide Account on the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate.......................... 219
Section 1014--National Guard Drug Interdiction and Counter-
drug Activities.......................................... 219
Section 1015--Sense of Congress on Mexico and Central
America.................................................. 219
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 219
Section 1021--Definition of Combatant and Support Vessel
for Purposes of the Annual Plan and Certification
Relating to Budgeting for Construction of Naval Vessels.. 219
Section 1022--National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund........... 220
Section 1023--Elimination of Requirement that a Qualified
Aviator or Naval Flight Officer Be in Command of an
Inactivated Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier Before
Decommissioning.......................................... 220
Section 1024--Limitation on Expenditure of Funds until
Commencement of Planning of Refueling and Complex
Overhaul of the U.S.S. George Washington................. 220
Section 1025--Sense of Congress Recognizing the Anniversary
of the Sinking of the U.S.S. Thresher.................... 220
Section 1026--Availability of Funds for Retirement or
Inactivation of Ticonderoga Class Cruisers or Dock
Landing Ships............................................ 220
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism................................. 220
Section 1031--Extension of Authority to Make Rewards for
Combating Terrorism...................................... 220
Section 1032--Prohibition on Use of Funds to Construct or
Modify Facilities in the United States to House Detainees
Transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba................................................ 221
Section 1033--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the
Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba............... 221
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 221
Section 1041--Modification of Department of Defense
Authority for Humanitarian Demining Assistance and
Stockpiled Conventional Munitions Assistance Programs.... 221
Section 1042--Authority to Accept Voluntary Services of Law
Students and Persons Studying to be Paralegals........... 221
Section 1043--Expansion of Authority for Secretary of
Defense to Use the Department of Defense Reimbursement
Rate for Transportation Services Provided to Certain Non-
Department of Defense Entities........................... 221
Section 1044--Repeal of Authority Relating to Use of
Military Installations by Civil Reserve Air Fleet
Contractors.............................................. 222
Section 1045--Certification and Limitation on Availability
of Funds for Aviation Foreign Internal Defense Program... 222
Section 1046--Submittal of Procedures and Reports Relating
to Sensitive Military Operations......................... 222
Section 1047--Limitation on Use of Russian-Flagged Airlift
Aircraft to Support the Airlift Movement Requirements of
the United States Transportation Command................. 222
Section 1048--Prohibition on Reduction of Force Structure
at Lajes Air Force Base until Completion of Assessments
by Secretary of Defense and General Accounting Office.... 223
Section 1049--Limitation on Removal of C-130 Aircraft...... 223
Section 1050--Conditions on Army National Guard and Active
Army Force Structure Changes Pending Comptroller General
Report................................................... 223
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports.............................. 224
Section 1061--Protection of Defense Mission-Critical
Infrastructure from Electromagnetic Pulse and High-
Powered Microwave Systems................................ 224
Section 1062--Response of the Department of Defense to
Compromises of Classified Information.................... 224
Section 1063--Report and Briefing to Congress on
Procurement and Inspection of Armored Commercial
Passenger-Carrying Vehicles to Transport Civilian
Employees of Department of Defense....................... 224
Section 1064--Study on Joint Analytic Capability of the
Department of Defense.................................... 225
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 225
Section 1071--Technical and Clerical Amendments............ 225
Section 1072--Sale or Donation of Excess Personal Property
for Border Security Activities........................... 225
Section 1073--Revision to Statute of Limitations for
Aviation Insurance Claims................................ 225
Section 1074--Pilot Program for the Human Terrain System... 225
Section 1075--Unmanned Aircraft Systems and National
Airspace................................................. 226
Section 1076--Sense of Congress on the Life and
Achievements of Dr. James R. Schlesinger................. 226
Section 1077--Reform of Quadrennial Defense Review......... 226
Section 1078--Resubmission of 2014 Quadrennial Defense
Review................................................... 227
Section 1079--Sense of Congress Regarding Counter-
Improvised Explosive Devices............................. 228
Section 1080--Enhancing Presence and Capabilities and
Readiness Posture of United States Military in Europe.... 228
Section 1081--Determination and Disclosure of
Transportation Costs Incurred by the Secretary of Defense
for Congressional Trips Outside the United States........ 228
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS............................. 228
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 228
Furlough of Employees Compensated Through Working Capital
Funds.................................................... 228
Overtime Pay for Department of the Navy Employees
Performing Maintenance on the Nuclear Aircraft Carrier
Forward Deployed in Japan................................ 229
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 229
Section 1101--One-Year Extension of Authority To Waive
Annual Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation
on Pay for Federal Civilian Employees Working Overseas... 229
Section 1102--One-Year Extension of Discretionary Authority
to Grant Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to
Personnel on Official Duty in a Combat Zone.............. 230
Section 1103--Revision to List of Science and Technology
Reinvention Laboratories................................. 230
Section 1104--Permanent Authority for Experimental
Personnel Program for Scientific and Technical Personnel. 230
Section 1105--Temporary Authorities for Certain Positions
at Department of Defense Research and Engineering
Facilities............................................... 230
Section 1106--Judicial Review of Merit Systems Protection
Board Decisions Relating to Whistleblowers............... 230
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS................... 231
OVERVIEW....................................................... 231
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 233
Additional Reporting on the Transfer of International
Traffic in Arms Regulations Controlled Missile Defense
Technology to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration........................................... 233
Aggression by the Russian Federation....................... 234
Briefings on Arms Control Inspections and Potential
Inconsistencies.......................................... 235
Conflict in Syria.......................................... 236
Department of Defense Arctic Collaboration with
International Partners................................... 237
Foreign Military Sales of U.S. Air and Missile Defense
Systems and Interoperability with Friendly and Allied
States................................................... 238
Global Security Contingency Fund........................... 239
Missile Defense Cooperation with Japan..................... 239
Missile Defense Cooperation with the Republic of Korea..... 240
Monitoring of Ongoing Construction Activities in
Afghanistan.............................................. 240
National Guard State Partnership Program................... 240
National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking....... 241
Non-Lethal Weapons for Contingency Operations.............. 241
North Atlantic Treaty Organization 2014 Summit............. 242
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Center of Excellence on
Deterrence............................................... 243
Oversight of United States-Russian Federation Missile
Defense Cooperation Discussions.......................... 244
Report on Countering Violations of the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty.................................... 244
Report on Financial Management Capacity of Afghan Ministry
of Defense and Ministry of Interior...................... 246
Report on Foreign Ballistic Missile Defense Programs....... 247
Report on Operational Contract Support in U.S. Africa
Command.................................................. 248
Report on the Proliferation Activities of Karl Lee and the
Support of the Chinese Government........................ 249
Report on U.S. Army Regionally Aligned Brigade in Africa... 249
Report on U.S. Government Comprehensive Approach to
Strengthen Its Strategic Partnership with Djibouti....... 250
Report on Updated Independent Cost Estimate of the European
Phased Adaptive Approach................................. 251
Republic of China Radar Interoperability................... 252
Transfers of Excess Defense Articles....................... 252
United States Security Assistance to the Government of
Egypt.................................................... 252
United States Security Policy and Posture in the Middle
East and North Africa.................................... 253
Updated Report on Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons
Developments............................................. 255
Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace............... 255
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 256
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 256
Section 1201--One-Year Extension of Global Security
Contingency Fund......................................... 256
Section 1202--Notice to Congress on Certain Assistance
Under Authority to Conduct Activities to Enhance the
Capability of Foreign Countries to Respond to Incidents
Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction.................... 257
Section 1203--Enhanced Authority for Provision of Support
to Foreign Military Liaison Officers of Foreign Countries
While Assigned to the Department of Defense.............. 257
Section 1204--Annual Report on Human Rights Vetting and
Verification Procedures of the Department of Defense..... 257
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan..... 258
Section 1211--Extension of Commanders' Emergency Response
Program in Afghanistan................................... 258
Section 1212--Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of
Certain Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United
States Military Operations............................... 258
Section 1213--Extension of Certain Authorities for Support
of Foreign Forces Supporting or Participating with the
United States Armed Forces............................... 258
Section 1214--Report on Progress Toward Security and
Stability in Afghanistan under Operation Resolute Support 259
Section 1215--Requirement to Withhold Department of Defense
Assistance to Afghanistan in Amount Equivalent to 150
Percent of All Taxes Assessed by Afghanistan to Extent
Such Taxes Are Not Reimbursed by Afghanistan............. 259
Section 1216--United States Plan for Sustaining the
Afghanistan National Security Forces Through the End of
Fiscal Year 2018......................................... 260
Section 1217--Sense of Congress on United States Military
Commitment to Operation Resolute Support in Afghanistan.. 260
Section 1218--Extension of Afghan Special Immigrant Program 261
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation....... 261
Section 1221--Limitation on Military Contact and
Cooperation between the United States and the Russian
Federation............................................... 261
Section 1222--Limitation on Use of Funds With Respect to
Certification of Certain Flights by the Russian
Federation Under the Treaty on Open Skies................ 262
Section 1223--Limitations on Providing Certain Missile
Defense Information to the Russian Federation............ 262
Section 1224--Limitation on Availability of Funds to
Transfer Missile Defense Information to the Russian
Federation............................................... 263
Section 1225--Report on Non-Compliance by the Russian
Federation of Its Obligations under the INF Treaty....... 263
Section 1226--Sense of Congress Regarding Russian
Aggression Toward Ukraine................................ 263
Section 1227--Annual Report on Military and Security
Developments Involving the Russian Federation............ 263
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region...... 264
Section 1231--Strategy to Prioritize United States
Interests in the United States Pacific Command Area of
Responsibility and Implementation Plan................... 264
Section 1232--Modifications to Annual Report on Military
and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic
of China................................................. 264
Section 1233--Report on Goals and Objectives Guiding
Military Engagement with Burma........................... 264
Section 1234--Report on Department of Defense Munitions
Strategy for United States Pacific Command............... 265
Section 1235--Missile Defense Cooperation.................. 265
Section 1236--Maritime Capabilities of Taiwan and Its
Contribution to Regional Peace and Stability............. 265
Section 1237--Independent Assessment on Countering Anti-
access and Area-denial Strategies and Capabilities in the
Asia-Pacific Region...................................... 265
Section 1238--Sense of Congress Reaffirming Security
Commitment to Japan...................................... 266
Section 1239--Sense of Congress on Opportunities to
Strengthen Relationship between the United States and the
Republic of Korea........................................ 266
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 266
Section 1241--Extension of Authority for Support of Special
Operations to Combat Terrorism........................... 266
Section 1242--One-Year Extension of Authorization for Non-
Conventional Assisted Recovery Capabilities.............. 266
Section 1243--Extension and Modification of Authority to
Support Operations and Activities of the Office of
Security Cooperation in Iraq............................. 266
Section 1244--Modification of National Security Planning
Guidance to Deny Safe Havens to Al-Qaeda and Its Violent
Extremist Affiliates..................................... 267
Section 1245--Enhanced Authority to Acquire Goods and
Services of Djibouti in Support of Department of Defense
Activities in United States Africa Command Area of
Responsibility........................................... 267
Section 1246--Strategic Framework for United States
Security Force Assistance and Cooperation in the European
and Eurasian Regions..................................... 268
Section 1247--Requirement of Department of Defense to
Continue Implementation of United States Strategy to
Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally and
Participation in Interagency Working Group............... 269
Section 1248--Department of Defense Situational Awareness
of Economic and Financial Activity....................... 269
Section 1249--Treatment of the Kurdistan Democratic Party
and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan Under the
Immigration and Nationality Act.......................... 269
Section 1250--Prohibition on the Integration of Certain
Missile Defense Systems.................................. 269
Subtitle F--Reports and Sense of Congress Provisions......... 270
Section 1261--Report on ``New Normal'' and General Mission
Requirements of United States Africa Command............. 270
Section 1262--Report on Contractors with the Department of
Defense That Have Conducted Significant Transactions with
Iranian Persons or the Government of Iran................ 270
Section 1263--Reports on Nuclear Program of Iran........... 271
Section 1264--Sense of Congress on United States Presence
and Cooperation in the Arabian Gulf Region to Deter Iran. 271
Section 1265--Sense of Congress on Modernization of Defense
Capabilities of Poland................................... 272
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION......................... 272
OVERVIEW....................................................... 272
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 273
Cooperative Biological Engagement Program.................. 273
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 273
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs and Funds....................................... 273
Section 1302--Funding Allocations.......................... 274
Section 1303--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Cooperative Threat Reduction Activities with Russian
Federation............................................... 274
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 274
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 274
Progress on Determining Sufficient Working Capital Fund
Cash Balances............................................ 274
Secure Sources of Materials Critical to National Security.. 275
Upgrading Beryllium within the National Defense Stockpile.. 276
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 276
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 276
Section 1401--Working Capital Funds........................ 276
Section 1402--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction,
Defense.................................................. 276
Section 1403--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-Wide................................. 276
Section 1404--Defense Inspector General.................... 276
Section 1405--Defense Health Program....................... 277
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile....................... 277
Section 1411--Revisions to Previously Authorized Disposals
from the National Defense Stockpile...................... 277
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 277
Section 1421--Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint
Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Facility Demonstration Fund for Captain James A.
Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois...................... 277
Section 1422--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed
Forces Retirement Home................................... 277
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS....................................... 277
OVERVIEW....................................................... 277
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 278
National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment............. 278
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 278
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations....... 278
Section 1501--Purpose...................................... 278
Section 1502--Procurement.................................. 279
Section 1503--Operation and Maintenance.................... 279
Section 1504--Military Personnel........................... 279
Section 1505--Other Appropriations......................... 279
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 279
Section 1511--Treatment as Additional Authorizations....... 279
Section 1512--Special Transfer Authority................... 279
Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters.......... 279
Section 1521--Continuation of Existing Limitations on the
Use of Funds in the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund..... 279
Section 1522--Use of and Transfer of Funds from Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund.................. 279
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS... 280
OVERVIEW....................................................... 280
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 280
Additional Homeland Missile Defense Interceptor Site....... 280
Air Force Cyber............................................ 281
Air Force Distributed Common Ground/Surface System......... 281
Assessment of Foreign Nuclear Weapons Programs............. 282
Biometrics for Identity and Access Management.............. 283
Briefing and Report on the Implementation of the Secretary
of Defense's Plans for Cruise Missile Defense of the
United States............................................ 283
Briefing on Funding Modernization of the Nuclear Deterrent. 284
Briefing on Number of B61-12 Nuclear Gravity Bombs to Be
Produced................................................. 285
Briefing on Plutonium Strategy............................. 285
Comptroller General Assessment of U.S. Cyber Command....... 286
Comptroller General Assessment on Airborne Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance......................... 287
Comptroller General Evaluation on Department of Defense
Efforts to Protect Information and Systems from Insider
Threats.................................................. 287
Comptroller General Review of Nuclear Weapons Council...... 288
Conventional Prompt Strike Capability Research,
Development, and Acquisition............................. 289
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Review of Missile
Defense Agency Tests and Targets Efficiencies............ 290
Defense Industrial Base Information Sharing for
Cybersecurity............................................ 290
Defense Intelligence Priorities............................ 291
Directed Energy for Missile Defense........................ 291
E4-B and Assessments on Nuclear Command and Control........ 292
Encrypted Key Delivery..................................... 292
Fielding of Global Positioning System Military Code........ 293
Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests for Trident II D5
Missiles................................................. 293
Geospatial Intelligence for Disadvantaged Users............ 294
Global Positioning System Denied Environments.............. 294
Global Positioning System Replenishment.................... 294
High Capacity Satellite Communications..................... 295
Human Intelligence Training Joint Center of Excellence..... 295
Information Assurance Training and Certification........... 295
Inspector General Review of the Activities Supporting the
Joint Information Environment............................ 296
Investments for Joint Information Environment Activities... 296
Kestrel Eye Joint Capability Technology Demonstration...... 297
Long Range Discriminating Radar for Homeland Missile
Defense.................................................. 297
Metrics of Trust in Cybersecurity.......................... 298
Military Intelligence Program and Defense Input to the
National Intelligence Program............................ 299
Missile Defense Applications for Electro Magnetic Rail Gun
Technology............................................... 299
Mobile User Objective System............................... 300
Nuclear Detonation Detection System........................ 301
Operationally Responsive Space............................. 301
Plan for Improving Cyber Situational Awareness............. 302
Processing, Exploitation and Dissemination................. 303
Provision of Finished Intelligence Products on the CAPITOL
NETWORK.................................................. 303
Remote Sensing Technology Education Programs............... 304
Report and Plan for Minuteman III Sustainment.............. 304
Report on Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex........ 305
Report on Balance in Nuclear Weapons Program............... 305
Report on International Agreements Concerning Outer Space
Activities............................................... 306
Report on Reliability, Modernization and Refurbishment of
the Ground-based Midcourse Defense Segment............... 306
Report on Satellite Positioning Ground Monitoring Stations
Near U.S. Overseas Military Installations................ 307
Report on Strategic Submarine Command and Control in the
People's Republic of China............................... 308
Requirement for Plan for Use of Highly Accelerated Life
Testing and Highly Accelerated Stress Screening.......... 309
Responses to Foreign Hypersonic Weapons Threats............ 309
Retirement of B83 Nuclear Gravity Bombs.................... 309
Revision to the Integrated Master Test Plan................ 310
Shortfalls in Headquarters Cyber Support Personnel......... 310
Space-Based Reconnaissance................................. 311
Special Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Exploitation
Program.................................................. 311
Standard Missile 3 Block IB................................ 312
Targeting Enterprise....................................... 312
U.S. Transportation Command Joint Intelligence and
Operations Center........................................ 313
University Affiliated Research Centers for the Missile
Defense Agency........................................... 313
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 314
Subtitle A--Space Activities................................. 314
Section 1601--Department of Defense Space Security and
Defense Program.......................................... 314
Section 1602--Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
Notification............................................. 314
Section 1603--Satellite Communications Responsibilities of
Executive Agent for Space................................ 315
Section 1604--Liquid Rocket Engine Development Program..... 315
Section 1605--Pilot Program for Acquisition of Commercial
Satellite Communication Services......................... 315
Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related
Activities............................................... 316
Section 1611--Assessment and Limitation on Availability of
Funds for Intelligence Activities and Programs of United
States Special Operations Command and Special Operations
Forces................................................... 316
Section 1612--Annual Briefing on the Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Requirements of the
Combatant Commands....................................... 316
Section 1613--One-Year Extension of Report on Imagery
Intelligence and Geospatial Information Support Provided
to Regional Organizations and Security Alliances......... 317
Section 1614--Tactical Exploitation of National
Capabilities Executive Agent............................. 317
Section 1615--Air Force Intelligence Organization.......... 317
Section 1616--Prohibition on National Intelligence Program
Consolidation............................................ 317
Subtitle C--Cyberspace-related Matters....................... 318
Section 1621--Executive Agency for Cyber Test and Training
Ranges................................................... 318
Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces................................... 318
Section 1631--Preparation of Annual Budget Request
Regarding Nuclear Weapons................................ 318
Section 1632--Independent Review of the Personnel
Reliability Program of the Department of Defense and the
Human Reliability Program of the Department of Energy.... 319
Section 1633--Assessment of Nuclear Weapon Secondary
Requirement.............................................. 319
Section 1634--Retention of Missile Silos................... 320
Section 1635--Certification on Nuclear Force Structure..... 320
Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs......................... 321
Section 1641--Theater Air and Missile Defense of Allies of
the United States........................................ 321
Section 1642--Sense of Congress on Procurement and
Deployment of Capability Enhancement II Exoatmospheric
Kill Vehicle............................................. 321
TITLE XVII--DEFENSE AUDIT ADVISORY PANEL ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
AUDITABILITY................................................. 321
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 321
Section 1701--Findings and Purposes........................ 321
Section 1702--Establishment of Advisory Panel on Department
of Defense Audit Readiness............................... 322
Section 1703--Duties of the Advisory Panel................. 322
Section 1704--Powers of the Advisory Panel................. 322
Section 1705--Advisory Panel Personnel Matters............. 322
Section 1706--Termination of the Advisory Panel............ 322
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 322
PURPOSE........................................................ 322
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW.............. 322
Section 2001--Short Title.................................. 323
Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
Required To Be Specified by Law.......................... 323
Section 2003--Effective Date............................... 323
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................ 323
SUMMARY........................................................ 323
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 323
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 323
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 324
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 324
Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 324
Section 2103--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 324
Section 2104--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2004 Project......................... 324
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2013 Projects........................ 324
Section 2106--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2011 Project........................................ 325
Section 2107--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2012 Projects....................................... 325
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 325
SUMMARY........................................................ 325
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 325
Explanation of Funding Adjustment.......................... 325
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 326
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 326
Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 326
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 326
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 326
Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Projects........................ 326
Section 2206--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project......................... 326
Section 2207--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2011 Projects....................................... 326
Section 2208--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2012 Projects....................................... 327
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION..................... 327
SUMMARY........................................................ 327
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 327
Air Force Strategic Basing Process......................... 327
Infrastructure Deficiencies of Dining Facilities........... 327
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 328
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 328
Section 2302--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 328
Section 2303--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2008 Project......................... 328
Section 2304--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2011 Project........................................ 328
Section 2305--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2012 Projects....................................... 328
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............... 328
SUMMARY........................................................ 328
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 329
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 329
Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility................. 330
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 330
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations.................... 330
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 330
Section 2402--Authorized Energy Conservation Projects...... 330
Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense
Agencies................................................. 331
Section 2404--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2011 Projects....................................... 331
Section 2405--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2012 Projects....................................... 331
Section 2406--Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry
Out Certain Fiscal Year 2015 Projects Pending Submission
of Required Reports...................................... 331
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations......... 331
Section 2411--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical
Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide.............. 331
Section 2412--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2000 Project......................... 331
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM...................................................... 332
SUMMARY........................................................ 332
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 332
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 332
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 332
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 332
SUMMARY........................................................ 332
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 332
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 332
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 333
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of
Appropriations........................................... 333
Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction
and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 333
Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 333
Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps
Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects....... 234
Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction
and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 234
Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 234
Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National
Guard and Reserve........................................ 234
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 234
Section 2611--Modification and Extension of Authority to
Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Projects.............. 234
Section 2612--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2013 Project......................... 234
Section 2613--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2011 Project........................................ 335
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES............. 335
SUMMARY........................................................ 335
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 335
Base Closure and Realignment Disposal Assessment........... 335
Joint Base Closure and Realignment Recommendations......... 336
Property Disposal Methods.................................. 336
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 336
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 336
Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base
Realignment and Closure Activities Funded Through
Department of Defense Base Closure Account............... 336
Subtitle B--Prohibition on Additional BRAC Round............. 337
Section 2711--Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round..................... 337
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 337
Section 2721--Force-Structure Plans and Infrastructure
Inventory and Assessment of Infrastructure Necessary to
Support the Force Structure.............................. 337
Section 2722--Modification of Property Disposal Procedures
Under Base Realignment and Closure Process............... 337
Section 2723--Final Settlement of Claims Regarding
Caretaker Agreement for Former Defense Depot Ogden, Utah. 337
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS........... 338
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 338
Army Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment.... 338
Cyber and Electromagnetic Open-Air Test Ranges............. 338
Deployment of Secure Work Enviroments...................... 338
Facilities Modernization Model............................. 339
Family Housing at Camp Humphreys, Korea.................... 340
High Performance Facades for Department of Defense
Installations............................................ 340
Innovative Building Materials and Design Techniques........ 341
Joint Land Use Study....................................... 341
Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization........................ 342
Performance-Based Standards for Building System Components. 342
Public-Private Family Housing on Guam...................... 342
Real Property Management................................... 343
Report on Circumvention of Military Construction Laws...... 344
Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective Glass Beads........... 344
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 345
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes.......................................... 345
Section 2801--Prevention of Circumvention of Military
Construction Laws........................................ 345
Section 2802--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Unspecified Minor Military Construction.................. 345
Section 2803--Use of One-Step Turn-Key Contractor Selection
Procedures for Additional Facility Projects.............. 345
Section 2804--Extension of Limitation on Construction
Projects in European Command Area of Responsibility...... 345
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 346
Section 2811--Consultation Requirement in Connection with
Department of Defense Major Land Acquisitions............ 346
Section 2812--Renewals, Extensions, and Succeeding Leases
for Financial Institutions Operating on Military
Installations............................................ 346
Section 2813--Arsenal Installation Reutilization Authority. 346
Section 2814--Deposit of Reimbursed Funds to Cover
Administrative Expenses Relating to Certain Real Property
Transactions............................................. 346
Section 2815--Special Easement Acquisition Authority,
Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai,
Hawaii................................................... 346
Section 2816--National Security Considerations for
Inclusion of Federal Property on National Register of
Historic Places or Designation as National Historic
Landmark under the National Historic Preservation Act.... 347
Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military
Realignment.............................................. 347
Section 2831--Repeal or Modification of Certain
Restrictions on Realignment of Marine Corps Forces in
Asia-Pacific Region...................................... 347
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances................................. 347
Section 2841--Land Conveyance, Mt. Soledad Veterans
Memorial, La Jolla, California........................... 347
Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Former Walter Reed Army
Hospital, District of Columbia........................... 347
Section 2843--Transfers of Administrative Jurisdiction,
Camp Frank D. Merrill and Lake Lanier, Georgia........... 347
Section 2844--Land Conveyance, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-
Hickam, Hawaii........................................... 348
Section 2845--Modification of Conditions on Land
Conveyance, Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, Illinois....... 348
Section 2846--Land Conveyance, Robert H. Dietz Army Reserve
Center, Kingston, New York............................... 348
Section 2847--Exercise of Reversionary Interest, Camp
Gruber, Oklahoma......................................... 348
Section 2848--Land Conveyance, Hanford Site, Washington.... 348
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 348
Section 2861--Memorial to the Victims of the Shooting
Attack at the Washington Navy Yard....................... 348
Section 2862--Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for
Security Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific
Center for Security Studies.............................. 349
Section 2863--Redesignation of Pohakuloa Training Area in
Hawaii as the Pohakuloa Training Center.................. 349
Section 2864--Designation of Distinguished Flying Cross
National Memorial in Riverside, California............... 349
Section 2865--Renaming Site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage
National Historical Park, Ohio........................... 349
Section 2866--Manhattan Project National Historical Park... 349
TITLE XXIX--MILITARY LAND TRANSFERS AND WITHDRAWALS TO SUPPORT
READINESS AND SECURITY....................................... 349
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 349
Subtitle A--Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada................. 349
Section 2901--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction,
Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada......................... 349
Section 2902--Water Rights................................. 349
Section 2903--Withdrawal................................... 350
Subtitle B--Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine
Palms, California........................................ 350
Section 2911--Redesignation of Johnson Valley Off-Highway
Vehicle Recreation Area, California...................... 350
Subtitle C--Bureau of Land Management Withdrawn Military
Lands Efficiency and Savings............................. 350
Section 2921--Elimination of Termination Date for Public
Land Withdrawals and Reservations Under Military Lands
Withdrawal Act of 1999................................... 350
Subtitle D--Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California. 350
Section 2931--Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Land for
Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California......... 350
Subtitle E--White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico............ 350
Section 2941--Additional Withdrawal and Reservation of
Public Land to Support White Sands Missile Range, New
Mexico................................................... 350
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 351
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 351
OVERVIEW....................................................... 351
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 351
National Nuclear Security Administration..................... 351
Overview................................................... 351
Weapons Activities......................................... 351
B61-12 and W76-1 Life Extension Programs................. 351
Deferral of the W78/88-1 Life Extension Program.......... 352
Deferred maintenance..................................... 352
Implementation of Center for Security Technology,
Analysis, Response, and Testing........................ 353
Plan for Public-Private Partnerships..................... 353
Weapons Activities and budget prioritization............. 354
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................... 354
Adopting the Gold Standard for section 123 agreements.... 354
Explanation of Funding Adjustments for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation....................................... 355
Nuclear Security Summit 2014............................. 356
Naval Reactors............................................. 356
Briefing on requirements and gaps for preserving the
capability to study the use of Low-Enriched Uranium for
Naval Reactors......................................... 356
Naval Reactors........................................... 357
Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project............. 358
Office of the Administrator................................ 358
Improvements to National Nuclear Security Administration
budget structure....................................... 358
Reorganization and reform................................ 359
Environmental and Other Defense Activities................... 360
Overview................................................... 360
Defense Environmental Cleanup.............................. 360
Environmental Management technology development program.. 360
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.............................. 360
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 360
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations......... 360
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration..... 360
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup................ 361
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities..................... 361
Section 3104--Energy Security and Assurance................ 361
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations.............................................. 361
Section 3111--Design and Use of Prototypes of Nuclear
Weapons for Intelligence Purposes........................ 361
Section 3112--Authorized Personnel Levels of National
Nuclear Security Administration.......................... 362
Section 3113--Cost Containment for Uranium Capabilities
Replacement Project...................................... 362
Section 3114--Plutonium Pit Production Capacity............ 363
Section 3115--Definition of Baseline and Threshold for
Stockpile Life Extension Project......................... 364
Section 3116--Production of Nuclear Warhead for Long-Range
Standoff Weapon.......................................... 364
Section 3117--Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium...... 365
Section 3118--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Office of the Administrator for Nuclear Security......... 366
Section 3119--Additional Limitation on Availability of
Funds for Office of the Administrator for Nuclear
Security................................................. 366
Section 3120--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Non-
Proliferation Activities Between the United States and
the Russian Federation................................... 367
Section 3121--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Activities at Sites in
Russian Federation....................................... 368
Subtitle C--Plans and Reports................................ 368
Section 3131--Cost Estimation and Program Evaluation by
National Nuclear Security Administration................. 368
Section 3132--Analysis and Report on W88 Alt 370 Program
High Explosives Options.................................. 368
Section 3133--Analysis of Existing Facilities.............. 369
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 369
Section 3141--Technical Corrections to Atomic Energy
Defense Act.............................................. 369
Section 3142--Technical Corrections to National Nuclear
Security Administration Act.............................. 369
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 369
OVERVIEW....................................................... 369
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 369
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 369
Section 3202--Inspector General of Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board.................................. 369
Section 3203--Number of Employees of Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board.................................. 370
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................ 370
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 370
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 370
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................. 370
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 370
Obsolete Vessel ``Best Value'' Contracts................... 370
Recapitalization of the U.S. Maritime Ready Reserve Force
Fleet.................................................... 371
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 371
Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for National
Security Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year
2015..................................................... 371
Section 3502--Special Rule for DD-17....................... 371
Section 3503--Sense of Congress on the Role of Domestic
Maritime Industry in National Security................... 371
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES....................................... 371
Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables... 371
Summary of National Defense Authorizations for Fiscal Year
2015..................................................... 372
National Defense Budget Authority Implication.............. 376
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT........................................... 377
Section 4101--Procurement.................................. 377
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.......... 418
Section 4201--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.. 418
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 450
Section 4301--Operation and Maintenance.................... 450
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL................................... 476
Section 4401--Military Personnel........................... 476
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 477
Section 4501--Other Authorizations......................... 477
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................ 480
Section 4601--Military Construction........................ 480
TABLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS..... 491
Section 4701--Department of Energy National Security
Programs................................................. 491
Department of Defense Authorization Request...................... 503
Communications from Other Committees............................. 504
Fiscal Data...................................................... 518
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 518
Statement Required by the Congressional Budget Act............... 521
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 521
Advisory of Earmarks............................................. 521
Oversight Findings............................................... 521
General Performance Goals and Objectives......................... 521
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 522
Federal Advisory Committee Statement............................. 523
Applicability to the Legislative Branch.......................... 523
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 523
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 523
Committee Votes.................................................. 523
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 539
Additional Views................................................. 540
113th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 113-446
======================================================================
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2015
_______
May 13, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. McKeon, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4435]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 4435) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense and
for military construction, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the
bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the
reported bill.
The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment
to the text of the bill.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
The bill would: (1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2015 for procurement and for research, development, test,
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2015 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2015: (a) the
personnel strength for each Active Duty component of the
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the
Selected Reserve for each Reserve Component of the Armed
Forces; (4) Modify various elements of compensation for
military personnel and impose certain requirements and
limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment;
(5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for military
construction and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations
for Overseas Contingency Operations; (7) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for the Department of
Energy national security programs; (8) Modify provisions
related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for the Maritime
Administration.
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015, is a key mechanism through which Congress
fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States,
which grants Congress the power to raise and support an Army;
to provide and maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the
government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Rule X
of the House of Representatives provides the House Committee on
Armed Services with jurisdiction over the Department of Defense
generally and over the military application of nuclear energy.
The committee bill includes the large majority of the findings
and recommendations resulting from its oversight activities in
the current year, as informed by the experience gained over the
previous decades of the committee's existence.
The bill reflects the committee's steadfast support of the
courageous, professional, and dedicated men and women of the
U.S. Armed Forces and the committee's appreciation for the
sacrifices they make to accomplish their required missions.
Events of the last year, ranging from on-going operations in
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, robust counter-terrorism
efforts around the globe, to time-sensitive disaster and
humanitarian responses, serve to highlight the U.S. military's
flexibility and responsiveness in defending the Nation's
interests and addressing security challenges. The committee
understands that the capabilities of the Armed Forces are
underpinned by the dedicated civilian employees of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy's National
Nuclear Security Administration, as well as the defense
industrial base. Each of these elements is required to enable
the U.S. military to be the guarantor of peace and economic
security that it has been for generations. The committee is
committed to providing full authorization for the funding
required to restore the readiness of the military; enhance the
quality of life of military service members and their families;
sustain and improve the Armed Forces; and properly safeguard
the national security of the United States.
In addition to providing authorization of appropriations,
the committee bill would balance the force with constrained
resources; support and protect the Nation's warfighters and
their families; support a continued military commitment and
U.S. presence in Afghanistan; begin the process of reforming
Department of Defense institutions and processes; and assure
that America's Armed Forces maintain the vital global presence
that allows them to face current threats and prepare for new
ones.
Resources for Warfighters and Families
The committee remains committed to providing America's
warfighters, veterans, and their families with the care and
support they need, deserve, and have earned. This bill would
authorize an extension of a wide array of bonuses, special and
incentive pays for the Nation's men and women in uniform.
The committee continues to maintain a focus on sexual
assault prevention and prosecution. This bill would continue to
refine the Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response program, while at the same time requiring continued
monitoring of the Department's implementation of the
significant reforms enacted by Congress over the past 2 years.
While the committee recognizes the need for compensation
reform, it believes such reforms must be examined holistically
before proceeding with wide-impacting changes, and it looks
forward to reviewing the recommendations provided by the
congressionally directed Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission. Thus, the committee rejects the
Department's proposed piecemeal cuts to TRICARE, housing
allowances, and commissary benefits contained in the
President's fiscal year 2015 budget request.
The committee is troubled by the growing suicide rate among
members of the Armed Forces, to include the Nation's special
operations forces. This bill would require standardization of
the collection, reporting, and assessment of suicide data
involving members of the Armed Forces and their family members,
including Reserve Components, and provide enhanced tracking of
suicide data within the Department. Additionally, this bill
would require a review of Department of Defense efforts
regarding suicide prevention among members of the special
operations forces and their family members.
This bill would also express the sense of Congress that the
United States has a responsibility to continue to search for
missing or captured members of the Armed Forces while
transitioning from combat operations in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan.
Lastly, the committee maintains serious reservations about
the end strength and force structure reduction plans for the
military. America remains at war today and will continue at
some level of persistent global conflict with a committed enemy
for the foreseeable future. Further end strength reductions
could put at risk the military's ability to meet its global
commitments.
Continuing Commitment to Afghanistan
The committee recognizes that the gains in Afghan security,
governance, and society have come as a result of the immense
sacrifices made by U.S. and coalition forces and the Afghan
people. The committee continues to believe that the United
States has a vital national security interest in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, and that Al Qaeda and its affiliates
must be denied safe havens in Afghanistan and elsewhere to
launch attacks against the United States and its allies. The
committee, therefore, supports the post-2014 North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) mission known as Operation Resolute
Support, and it urges the President to announce a residual U.S.
presence in Afghanistan to demonstrate U.S. commitment,
reassure the Afghan people, and encourage other NATO and
coalition partners to commit to a post-2014 mission and
presence in Afghanistan. The committee remains optimistic that
a new Afghan president will sign the Bilateral Security
Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan, which
would serve as a framework should also pave the way for a post-
2014 NATO-Afghanistan status of forces agreement.
As the United States transitions from Operation Enduring
Freedom to Operation Resolute Support, the committee expects
the Administration to have a clear understanding of the
missions, authorities, plans, and resources necessary to
support Operation Resolute Support. The committee has carefully
reviewed the authorities for which it recommends extension,
such as the Commanders' Emergency Response Program and
reimbursement of coalition nations for support provided to U.S.
military operations. The committee would require a revised
``Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in
Afghanistan Under Operation Resolute Support'' to inform its
understanding of the post-2014 security and economic
environment in Afghanistan, and a plan for sustaining the
Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) through fiscal year
2018. Additionally, the committee continues to leverage
important oversight tools, such as the Department of Defense
Inspector General, to ensure Department of Defense funds for
Afghanistan are properly managed to protect against waste,
fraud, and abuse. In this vein, the committee would require the
Department of Defense to reduce the amount of assistance
provided to the Government of Afghanistan during fiscal year
2015, as a result of improper taxation of Department of Defense
assistance by the Government of Afghanistan during fiscal year
2014. The committee also recognizes the service performed by
many Afghans in support of U.S. military and diplomatic
efforts, and it would authorize additional special immigrant
visas for Afghans who were employed by or on behalf of the U.S.
Government in Afghanistan.
Preserving Key Capabilities in a Time of Fiscal Austerity
In April 2011, the President announced his intention to
seek over $400.0 billion in savings within the Department of
Defense over the next decade. Subsequently, Congress passed the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) in August 2011.
Public Law 112-25 significantly reduced discretionary spending
across the Federal Government and for the military in
particular. The Department of Defense noted that cuts relating
to Public Law 112-25 amounted to $489.0 billion. In addition,
sequestration went into effect across the Federal Government on
March 1, 2013, immediately reducing funds for the Department by
$37.3 billion for fiscal year 2013. The Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2013 (Public Law 113-67) provided National Defense some
relief from sequestration-level funding for fiscal years 2014
and 2015, but funding for those fiscal years remained
relatively flat when compared to fiscal year 2013 levels. If
sequestration-level budget caps remain in effect for fiscal
year 2016 and beyond, the decrease to National Defense spending
will total over $1.0 trillion, a decrease of 19 percent when
compared to projections for defense spending less than 4 years
ago.
The committee recognizes that its goal of providing for the
common defense is becoming increasingly difficult in an era of
fiscal austerity. This bill aims to balance the force with
constrained resources. The committee sought to find savings in
less critical areas that do not pose the threat of irrevocable
damage to the force or the potential to harm recruiting or
retention. Still, at current resource levels tough choices had
to be made.
The committee remains concerned about readiness levels and
their continued impact to the force in the out years unless
sequestration is addressed. The committee is mindful that when
readiness is low and the military is ill-equipped and
unprepared to fight, it is the troops who pay the ultimate
price with their lives.
This bill would prohibit the Department from pursuing an
additional Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) round, or any
other effort, aimed at locking in force structure reductions
during a time of accelerated transition and the withdrawal of
troops from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. It would
address deficiencies in the Air Force's nuclear enterprise by
resourcing several unfunded requirements for the Nuclear Force
Improvement Program, while also addressing nuclear security
forces equipment shortfalls which have exacerbated the
challenges. Additionally, it would address the Marine Corps'
requirement to establish two new special Marine Air-Ground Task
Forces in U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Central Command which
are needed to support U.S. diplomatic and military
installations around the world, requirements made exceptionally
clear after the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
This bill would also take steps to enhance the hard-won
readiness of the Army by funding unmet requirements for
training, flying hours, and depot maintenance necessary to
support ongoing and future operations.
The committee has also sought to preserve key naval
capabilities to ensure a ready and robust Navy that is prepared
to support global combatant commander requirements. This bill
would support the refueling of the USS George Washington, a
carrier with 25 years of useful life left; prevent the early
retirement of 11 cruisers and 3 dock landing ships; and
mitigate shortfalls in the Navy's aviation depot maintenance
accounts.
The decrease in defense resources has resulted in tough
choices between important programs. While this bill is able to
fund many important programs with savings from across the
defense enterprise, there simply was not enough to save every
program.
This bill would make prudent investments designed to
preserve the integrity of the industrial base while delivering
needed equipment to all elements of U.S. forces. These include
Abrams tank upgrades, the Hercules and Stryker vehicles,
tactical wheeled vehicles and the Grey Eagle program.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, America's citizen
soldiers have made repeated, heroic sacrifices in service to
their country. Their service has made the Guard more than an
operational reserve, but also a strategic resource. As funding
cuts force difficult choices, the committee is working to
preserve the appropriate balance between the active force and
the National Guard and Reserve.
The committee is concerned that foreign-controlled entities
may be acquiring property near critical military assets,
installations, and training facilities with the intent to
monitor defense activities. Therefore, this bill would require
a Department of Defense study that looks at gaps and
vulnerabilities in the interagency process for public property
estate transactions, and task the Government Accountability
Office to review the study.
Lastly, the committee would fund the Overseas Contingency
Operations at $79.4 billion, consistent with the House-passed
fiscal year 2015 budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 96.
Reforming the Department Of Defense
In an era of fiscal austerity, the committee recognizes the
need to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the
defense enterprise to get more defense for the dollar.
Therefore, the committee recently initiated a comprehensive
reform effort to improve the management culture, structure, and
practices of the Department of Defense. The committee believes
that any lasting reform will only be successful if it is
crafted by a solid partnership between both the House of
Representatives and Senate committees of jurisdiction, the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, each of the military
departments, and the defense industrial base. The committee
looks forward to working with all stakeholders on this long-
term effort. Many of the defense reform efforts included in
this bill are informed by the beginning stages of this
bipartisan effort, to include acquisition, institutional,
security, and strategy reforms.
In the area of acquisition reform, the committee aims to
identify and drive out disincentives that increase cost and
schedule of major programs and delay delivery of capabilities
to the warfighter. The reform effort also identifies services
contracting as an area where major improvements can be made.
This bill would encourage the Secretary of Defense to improve
data collection for services contracting and conduct better
analysis of the data to identify waste. It would also task the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report on
opportunities to improve services contract processes.
Additionally, this bill would direct the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation to consider the potential for
increase in program cost estimates or delays in schedule
estimates in the implementation of policies, procedures, and
activities related to operational test and evaluation.
Furthermore, as part of the ongoing effort to review the
processes that often keep the Department of Defense from
operating efficiently, and unintentionally create barriers to
meaningful small business participation in the defense
industrial base, the committee has worked closely with the
House Committee on Small Business and the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs. As a result of this bipartisan cooperation,
the bill includes provisions that would remove duplicative
processes, erase meaningless distinctions between competing
programs, leverage procurement best practices, and better use
the programs already in place.
In the area of institutional reform, the committee seeks to
ensure that any organizational changes and personnel reductions
implemented to achieve cost savings and management efficiencies
are being applied in the right places and are informed by a
comprehensive assessment of mission and functional
requirements, critical capability and skillset requirements,
and cost drivers. This bill would direct the Secretary of
Defense to report on combining combatant command back office
functions to achieve greater efficiencies and cost savings, and
task GAO to assess the Department's headquarters reduction
efforts, building off its previous work conducted for the
committee on examining growth in Department of Defense
headquarters. This bill would also restore the Office of Net
Assessment to its independent status, with the Office reporting
directly to the Secretary of Defense.
Additionally, the committee continues to build on its prior
work to improve the Department's fiscal responsibility,
transparency, and accountability, and as part of the broader
reform effort, it recommends the establishment of an advisory
panel on Department of Defense audit readiness. The purpose of
the panel would be to actively monitor the Department's audit
readiness and audit work and to report on problems that need to
be resolved with the intention to shed light on the best, most
efficient path forward to meet the 2017 and 2019 deadlines
relating to auditability. The advisory panel would be granted
authority to hold hearings and receive information directly
from the Department of Defense and would terminate in April
2019.
In the area of security reform, the committee is deeply
concerned about the grave impact to U.S. national security
caused by the unauthorized disclosure of classified
information. Such disclosures not only jeopardize U.S. military
operations, capabilities, and technology, they ultimately lead
to the loss of lives. This bill, therefore, directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide the committee with frequent
reports on its damage assessment resulting from these
unauthorized disclosures and steps the Department is taking to
mitigate the damage.
Lastly, in the area of strategy reform, the committee notes
that the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) has grown less
compliant with the law over time and strayed further from the
intent of Congress. The committee believes the QDR should
provide a mechanism for setting the priorities of the
Department of Defense, shaping the force, guiding capabilities
and resources, and adjusting the organization to respond to
changes in the strategic environment. In addition, it should
assist Congress in better understanding the relationships and
tradeoffs between missions, risks, and resources, particularly
in light of geopolitical changes and domestic developments in
the last few years. Therefore, this bill would require the
Secretary to resubmit the 2014 QDR and it would propose
sweeping changes to the Department's defense strategy review
process and reporting elements.
Addressing Current Threats and Preparing for New Challenges
The committee recognizes that it must focus not only on
addressing current threats, but also on preparing for emerging
and evolving challenges in an increasingly uncertain global
security environment, and it must ensure that defense resources
are balanced between the two objectives.
The committee remains concerned about U.S. posture and
presence in the Asia-Pacific region to deter aggression and
reassure allies and partners. The committee conducted an Asia-
Pacific oversight series, focusing largely on these
developments and the implications of the Administration's
rebalance to Asia on Department of Defense capabilities and
investments. Many of the Asia-Pacific- related provisions
contained in this bill reflect the findings and recommendations
that emerged from the oversight series.
As the mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
transitions and the military rebalances towards Asia, the
committee remains concerned about the persistent Al Qaeda
threat. This bill would require a report on the national
security planning guidance to address Al Qaeda safe havens, and
maintain prohibitions associated with the Guantanamo Bay
Detention Facility, including the bi-partisan prohibitions on
the transfer of detainees to the United States and on the
construction of terrorist detention facilities in the United
States.
The committee believes that an enduring presence in the
Middle East is vital, to include maintaining a robust forward
presence and posture to support U.S. allies and partners in the
region and to deter the Islamic Republic of Iran. This bill
would express congressional concern that many key bases are
funded through Overseas Contingency Operations funding and not
supported by status of forces agreements (SOFA). The committee
urges the President to shift to an enduring posture in the
Middle East and seek SOFA agreements with Gulf Cooperation
Council states. This bill would also recognize the President's
determination that the Arab Republic of Egypt is progressing in
its democratic transition and supports the President's decision
to deliver 10 Apache helicopters to Egypt for counterterrorism
operations. This bill further reflects congressional concern
regarding the influx of foreign fighters in the Syrian Arab
Republic and the committee's belief that ``prudent planning''
to support regional allies impacted by the Syria conflict is
warranted. The bill would also reflect the committee's belief
that an American presence in the Arabian Gulf is vital to deter
Iran as well as its belief that any comprehensive deal on
Iran's nuclear program should address past and present issues
of concern with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
and should require Iran to cease enrichment of uranium, address
ballistic missile and conventional military systems, and stop
support for international terrorism.
Shifting to Africa, the committee believes that U.S. Africa
Command (AFRICOM) is on the front lines of the next phase of
the terrorist threat, and this bill would seek to reinforce
AFRICOM's capabilities while also demanding accountability. It
recognizes the contributions the Republic of Djibouti has made
as a key strategic partner and establishes a number of programs
to ensure the relationship is enduring. It further requires a
report on the ``New Normal'' and general mission requirements
for AFRICOM, as well as a report on the readiness implications
of the Army's Regionally Aligned Brigade concept in Africa.
The committee condemns the recent aggressive actions
undertaken by the Government of the Russian Federation in
Ukraine, which include Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea,
deployment of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers near the
Ukrainian border, and its infiltration and destabilization of
eastern Ukraine. The committee therefore would limit U.S.-
Russia military contact and cooperation and limit the use of
funds for Department of Defense and National Nuclear Security
Administration activities with Russia. The NATO alliance
remains a cornerstone of international security, and the
committee would seek to further strengthen the alliance and
reassure U.S. allies and partners in Europe through measures
such as requiring a comprehensive strategic framework for
security force assistance to European and Eurasian forces and
providing additional funds for the Warsaw Initiative Fund/
Partnership for Peace program.
Lastly, in the area of missile defense, the bill would
fully fund the redesigned kill vehicle for the Ground-based
Missile Defense system and the new long-range discriminating
sensor, as well as support steps to ensure greater reliability
and maintenance of the system. This bill would support the
Israeli Cooperative and Iron Dome programs, recognizing the
importance of missile defense capabilities for U.S. allies and
partners, and provide increased investment for directed energy
and other next-generation technologies for missile defense.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 results from hearings
that began on March 5, 2014, and that were completed on April
10, 2014. The full committee conducted seven sessions. In
addition, a total of 16 sessions were conducted by 6 different
subcommittees.
COMMITTEE POSITION
On May 7, 2014, the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum
being present, approved H.R. 4435, as amended, by a vote of 61-
0.
EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 4435. The title of
the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the
bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as
amended.
RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS
The bill does not generally provide budget authority. This
bill authorizes appropriations; subsequent appropriation acts
will provide budget authority. However, the committee strives
to adhere to the recommendations as issued by the Committee on
the Budget as it relates to the jurisdiction of this committee.
The bill addresses the following categories in the
Department of Defense budget: procurement; research,
development, test, and evaluation; operation and maintenance;
military personnel; working capital funds; and military
construction and family housing. The bill also addresses the
Armed Forces Retirement Home, Department of Energy National
Security Programs, the Naval Petroleum Reserve and the Maritime
Administration.
Active Duty and Reserve personnel strengths authorized in
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide
authorization of specific dollar amounts for military
personnel.
SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE BILL
The President requested discretionary budget authority of
$592.9 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the
committee for fiscal year 2015. Of this amount, $495.6 billion
was requested for ``base'' Department of Defense programs,
$79.4 billion was requested for the Overseas Contingency
Operations requirements covering the entire fiscal year, and
$17.9 billion was requested for Department of Energy national
security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board.
The committee recommends an overall discretionary
authorization of $592.9 billion in fiscal year 2015, including
$79.4 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations. The base
committee authorization of $513.4 billion is a $31.0 billion
decrease below the levels provided for in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in
division D of this report summarizes the committee's
recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation
account for fiscal year 2015 and compares these amounts to the
President's request.
BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
The President's total request for the national defense
budget function (050) in fiscal year 2015 is $609.1 billion, as
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to
funding for programs addressed in this bill, the total 050
request includes discretionary funding for national defense
programs not in the committee's jurisdiction, discretionary
funding for programs that do not require additional
authorization in fiscal year 2015, and mandatory programs.
The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in
division D of this report details changes to all aspects of the
national defense budget function.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
OVERVIEW
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $90.6
billion for procurement. This represents a $3.0 billion
decrease over the amount authorized for fiscal year 2014.
The committee recommends authorization of $91.0 billion, an
increase of $1.5 billion from the fiscal year 2015 request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
procurement program are identified in division D of this Act.
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $5.1
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee
recommends authorization of $5.3 billion, an increase of $147.4
million, for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Aircraft Procurement, Army program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Armed aerial scout strategy
The committee notes that because of sequestration and
limited resources, the Army has announced the Aviation
Restructure Initiative (ARI) which retires older platforms and
defers the armed reconnaissance requirement for a replacement
to the current OH-58 Kiowa series helicopter. The committee
understands that as a result of the ARI, the Army will utilize
AH-64 Apache helicopters, teamed with the Shadow Unmanned
Aerial Systems, as an interim solution to meet the armed
reconnaissance mission. However, the committee is concerned
that the Army's plan does not address how the Army intends to
eventually meet the enduring requirement for a manned armed
scout helicopter.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than February 15, 2015, that includes a description
of the interim Apache scout implementation plan, as well as the
concept for what a follow-on plan and necessary resources would
be required to replace the interim solution with a platform
that fully meets the validated requirement.
Army Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance aircraft
The committee is aware of the Department of the Army's
Aerial Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
2020 vision. The committee recognizes that there are a variety
of platforms and capabilities, both Government and contractor
owned, that are being transitioned from a wartime environment
to a more stable strategic posture, but the committee is
concerned that the Army has not clearly identified the current
and future capacity and capability requirements for Aerial ISR.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
December 1, 2014, on the Army's Aerial ISR requirements and how
those requirements will be addressed in the future.
Army Signals Intelligence modernization
The committee understands that there are at least six Army
Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) programs in use or planned for
near-term fielding, including: Guard Rail Common Sensor;
Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance
System; Tactical SIGINT Program; Quick Reaction Capability C-
12s; Airborne Reconnaissance Low; and the Prophet ground SIGINT
collection platform. The committee is concerned that
maintaining six different SIGINT collection systems for these
platforms is costly and inefficient, as well as potentially
unsustainable given the current fiscal environment.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees and
the congressional intelligence committees by February 16, 2015,
that would present a SIGINT modernization plan, including a
detailed plan of action and milestones with anticipated costs
and schedules. The report should also consider the advisability
and feasibility of potentially converging all six Army SIGINT
programs to a common hardware baseline that is contractor
independent, with open architecture that could allow for the
use of software reprogrammable radios, as well as provide the
capability for insertion of emerging technologies and
collection capabilities.
Divestiture of rotorcraft through Army's Aviation Restructure
Initiative
The committee is aware of the Army's plan to divest certain
rotorcraft, such as the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, OH-58 A/C, and
TH-67 primary training helicopters, as part of its Aviation
Restructure Initiative. While the committee understands the
fiscal pressures facing the Army and supports its efforts to
restructure the rotorcraft force, the committee is concerned
that the planned divestiture of more than 750 aircraft between
fiscal years 2015-19 could have a negative impact on the
rotorcraft industrial base which has already been impacted by
declining defense spending.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by September 1, 2014, on the criteria for transferring these
helicopters as excess defense articles into the domestic and
international markets. As part of this briefing, the Army
should include an assessment of how its criteria for
divestiture meet all Federal laws and regulations governing
such equipment, including:
(1) A statement outlining the purposes for which the
article is being provided to any foreign country, including
whether such article has been previously provided to that
country;
(2) An assessment of the impact of the transfer on the
military readiness of the United States;
(3) An assessment of the impact of the transfer on the
national technology and industrial base and, particularly, the
impact on opportunities of entities in the national technology
and industrial base to sell new or used equipment to foreign
countries to which such articles might be transferred; and
(4) A statement describing the current value of such
articles and the value of such articles at acquisition.
Improved MQ-1C Gray Eagle modifications
The budget request contained $190.5 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army for the MQ-1C Gray Eagle Unmanned Aerial
System.
The committee notes that the MQ-1C Gray Eagle Unmanned
Aircraft System provides critical intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities to combatant commanders.
The committee understands that development efforts have already
been completed to modify the current Gray Eagle platform in
order to provide extended range capabilities. This capability,
known as the Improved Gray Eagle, includes significant
expansion of the fuselage to accommodate larger fuel capacity
and additional payloads as well as integration of an improved
heavy fuel engine to support takeoff at heavier weights.
However, funding for these modifications was not included in
the budget request. The committee believes the increased
endurance of a modified Gray Eagle would provide combatant
commanders greater employment options at increased ranges,
expanded payload options, and improved basing flexibility in
support of the Global ISR mission.
The committee recommends $239.5 million, an increase of
$49.0 million, for improved MQ-1C Gray Eagle modifications.
Missile Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $1.0
billion for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends
authorization of $1.0 billion, full funding of the request, for
fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Missile Procurement, Army program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $1.5
billion for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles,
Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.7 billion,
an increase of $230.2 million, for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
program are identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Combat vehicle industrial base management
The committee notes that as a result of the Budget Control
Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), the Army is in the process of
reducing its Active Duty end strength to 420,000, unless
sequestration is resolved. In addition, the Army has also
announced plans to reduce Active Component Brigade Combat Teams
(BCTs) from 45 to 32. The active Army has 17 Armor BCTs (ABCT),
20 Infantry BCTs, and 8 Stryker BCTs. The committee notes that
the ABCT, which is comprised of Abrams tanks and Bradley
fighting vehicles, is the only full-spectrum force in the
Army's force structure. With regard to the future utility of
armored forces, the committee notes that a RAND Corporation
report from 2010 concluded that, ``Heavy forces--based on tanks
and infantry fighting vehicles--are key elements of any force
that will fight hybrid enemies that have a modicum of training,
organization, and advanced weapons. Light and medium forces can
complement heavy forces, particularly in urban and other
complex terrain; they do not provide the survivability,
lethality, or mobility inherent in heavy forces. Quite simply,
heavy forces reduce operational risks and minimize friendly
casualties.''
The committee remains concerned that the Army may eliminate
too many ABCTs based on resource constraints rather than
meeting the needs of combatant commanders. Although the
committee has been informed that the Army will add a third
maneuver battalion back into the Active Component Armor and
Infantry BCTs, the committee has not been briefed on final
force structure and BCT mix decisions. The committee is
supportive of all BCTs having a third maneuver battalion and
notes that in the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452)
accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007, the committee opposed the Army's original
decision of having two maneuver battalions per BCT.
In addition to the mix of BCTs, the committee needs to
better understand the ramifications to the future combat
vehicle industrial base capabilities with regard to the Abrams
tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, Paladin howitzer, Hercules
recovery vehicle, Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, and the
Stryker combat vehicle. Specifically, the committee is
concerned about the Army's position that Foreign Military Sales
(FMS) alone is sufficient to sustain the viability of the
combat vehicle industrial base. The committee believes that the
associated impact this position has on the industrial base at
both the prime contractor and vendor level poses an
unacceptable level of risk. The committee acknowledges that the
Army has made positive strides in regards to FMS cases.
However, FMS cases often take years longer than originally
planned to materialize. In addition, many FMS cases procure
less capable variants which do not always equate to positive
workload at the prime and vendor levels. The committee
continues to believe that insufficient information is available
to Congress to make an informed decision regarding current and
potential future risks to the combat vehicle industrial base at
the prime and vendor levels. The committee commends the Army
for beginning the process to finally collect the necessary
analytical information required to make informed decisions
about the long-term sustainment of the combat vehicle
industrial base.
Finally, the committee applauds the Army for its efforts to
accelerate the Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) programs for
the M1 Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle and Stryker combat
vehicle. The out-year funding reflected in the budget request
for fiscal year 2015 indicates a commitment by the Army to move
forward with the next major technology upgrades for the
existing fleet of weapons systems that would ensure fielding of
the highest quality combat vehicles to a smaller force and also
sustain the fragile industrial base. However, the committee
remains concerned about the stability of Army modernization
funding in fiscal year 2016 and beyond given the implications
of sequestration. The committee believes multiyear procurement
contracts may reduce overall cost and help stabilize the
industrial base and notes that there is precedent for
successful Army combat vehicle multiyear procurements.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Army,
in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States
Code, to request multiyear procurement authority in future
budget requests for the Abrams ECP 1, Bradley ECP 2, and
Stryker ECP 1 programs.
Abrams tank upgrades
The budget request contained no funding for the M1A2 Abrams
tank upgrade program.
The committee continues to believe that the Army must
maintain the capability of Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT)
formations to over match any possible threat. The committee
notes that in a hearing before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air
and Land Forces, senior Army officials testified that the Army
does not plan to close down the industrial facilities used to
upgrade M1 Abrams tanks. In addition, the same senior Army
officials testified that these critical industrial base
facilities would have been at serious risk had it not been for
additional funding authorized and appropriated by Congress. The
committee understands the next scheduled upgrade for the Abrams
tank has been moved up to 2017 from 2019. The committee
commends the Army's decision to accelerate this upgrade, and
notes that in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014, the committee encouraged the Army take this action.
The committee continues to believe this course of action will
mitigate risk within the combat vehicle industrial base.
While the committee understands that the Army believes that
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) alone are enough to keep the
Abrams tank line ``warm'' until the 2017 time frame, based on
current world events, the committee continues to believe that
reliance upon FMS alone poses an unacceptable level of risk to
our combat vehicle industrial base and thus to our national
security. As a result, the committee believes that the best
course of action would be a combination of continued tank
upgrades for the Abrams tank program and ongoing FMS; the
combination of which should maintain production lines and
suppliers until the next Abrams tank upgrade program begins.
The committee acknowledges that if all FMS cases materialize as
planned, the Army may not need additional funding in fiscal
year 2015 in order to mitigate risk through the 2017 time
frame. However, according to the information provided to the
committee by the Army, the committee will not know if these FMS
cases have been funded until the December 2014 time frame.
With regard to the military need for more M1A2 Abrams tank
upgrades, the committee notes that six National Guard ABCTs are
currently equipped with a less capable version of the Abrams
tank. Therefore, the committee believes that as long as the
National Guard has a less capable version of the Abrams tank,
there will be a requirement for additional modernized M1A2
Abrams tanks.
The committee recommends $120.0 million in Procurement of
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army for the Abrams tank
upgrade program.
Hercules recovery vehicle
The budget request contained $50.5 million for the M88A2
improved recovery vehicle program.
The committee is aware that in order to provide greater
protection for soldiers, the Army's current and future fleet of
combat vehicles has grown significantly in weight. As a result,
the current fleet of M88A1 recovery vehicles is approaching its
maximum capability, and its capability will be greatly exceeded
by the future fleet of combat vehicles. The committee notes
that the M88A2 is the only vehicle that can single-handedly
recover a main battle tank, and that it was the only vehicle in
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that could recover larger
mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The committee
understands that the Army has recently increased the M88A2
acquisition objective to 933 systems, of which only 749 have
been funded for procurement through fiscal year 2015. The
committee supports the Army's decision to include funding in
the budget request for procurement of M88A2 vehicles, but
believes additional funding is necessary to maintain
production. The committee encourages the Army to pursue a
``pure fleet'' strategy in future budget requests.
The committee recommends $121.2 million, an increase of
$70.7 million, for the M88A2 improved recovery vehicle program.
Stryker combat vehicle modifications
The budget request contained $385.1 million in Weapons and
Tracked Compact Vehicles, Army for continued procurement of
upgraded Stryker combat vehicles and $90.2 million in PE 23735A
to continue the Stryker Engineering Change Proposal (ECP)
program.
The committee continues to support the Army's Stryker
program and in particular the Double-V Hull (DVH) program that
makes Stryker one of the most survivable and mobile vehicles in
the Army's inventory. The budget request included funding for
the second year of a 3-year procurement of DVH Strykers for a
third brigade set. The committee is aware the Army has a
documented requirement to equip all nine of its Stryker Brigade
Combat Teams with the DVH Stryker. The committee understands
the Army wants to begin procurement of a fourth brigade set of
DVH Strykers starting in fiscal year 2016. The Army also has an
unfunded requirement to accelerate the Stryker ECP program. The
Stryker ECP effort includes increased horsepower, network
integration, and other improvements. The committee notes that
the Army wants to accelerate Stryker ECP development in order
to produce DVH Strykers for the fourth brigade set that
incorporate the ECP upgrade.
The committee supports this initiative and recommends
$435.1 million, an increase of $50.0 million, for Stryker
procurement and $115.2 million, an increase of $25.0 million,
in PE 23735A to accelerate Stryker ECP development.
M9 upgrades
The committee understands the Army is preparing to
competitively pursue a non-developmental item, commercial-off-
the-shelf replacement handgun for the current M9 pistol. The
committee notes that the Army's modular handgun system (MHS) is
intended to provide soldiers with improved lethality, accuracy,
ergonomics, reliability, durability, and maintainability over
current systems. While the committee supports the MHS program,
the committee is aware that there may be an upgrade
configuration for the M9 that could provide increased
operational effectiveness while reducing life-cycle costs as
well as enhancing training capabilities. The committee notes
that because there are approximately 240,000 M9 pistols in the
current inventory and that the current procurement objective
for the MHS is still being determined, the committee encourages
the Army to consider an M9 upgrade program as a potential
complementary program to the MHS.
Transmission industrial base
The committee notes that the Army commissioned a
comprehensive assessment of the combat vehicle industrial base
to better understand the issues and challenges facing the
vendor industrial base. The first phase of the assessment,
which was completed last year, identified combat vehicle
transmissions as a significant area of concern. The assessment
concluded that combat vehicle transmissions are unique in that
they not only provide power to combat vehicles but also control
braking and steering. In other words, combat vehicle
transmissions are entirely different than commercial
transmissions, such as those that power the military's tactical
wheeled vehicle fleet. Although it has not been provided the
Army's final report, the committee understands the assessment
and recommends mitigation measures for the tracked combat
vehicle transmission industrial base.
The committee notes that although the Army has terminated
the Ground Combat Vehicle program, the Army has several tracked
vehicle programs in development or production. These include
the Armored Multi-purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program, the Paladin
Integrated Management (PIM) program, M88 recovery vehicle
program and major upgrades called ``Engineering Change
Proposals'' (ECP) for both the Abrams tank and Bradley fighting
vehicle. All of these vehicles are eligible for upgraded or
improved transmissions. The committee understands there are
only a few companies that produce transmissions for tracked
combat vehicles within the United States. Based on the results
of the Army's assessment, the committee is concerned about the
future viability of transmissions for tracked combat vehicles
based on low production rates and projected levels of funding
in the out years that may not support minimum sustaining rates
of production. The committee believes it may be necessary to
consider consolidation of production capabilities through a
partnership with existing suppliers.
The committee notes the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy continues
to direct a sector-by-sector, tier-by-tier review of the
defense industrial base and includes findings from that review
in the annual Industrial Base Capabilities Report to Congress,
which is required by section 2504 of title 10, United States
Code. However, the last annual report, delivered to Congress in
October 2013, did not specifically address the committee's
concerns related to combat vehicle transmissions.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than February 15, 2015, on the combat vehicle
transmission industrial base. The report should not continue to
summarize the challenges confronting the U.S. tracked vehicle
transmission industrial base, but should instead detail
specific mitigation measures and their implementation.
Specifically, the report should include the Army's plans and
potential funding profile that would be necessary to procure
new or improved combat vehicle transmissions for the AMPV, PIM,
M88 and Abrams and Bradley ECP programs, to include the
opportunity to exploit new technologies such as electric
drives. In addition, the report should include an assessment of
the potential to begin a 2-year pilot combat vehicle
transmission program that would address the feasibility of
consolidating production capabilities through a partnership
with existing and potential suppliers.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $1.0
billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Army. The committee
recommends authorization of $1.0 billion, a decrease of $23.4
million, for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Procurement of Ammunition, Army program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Munitions industrial base management
The committee notes that declining defense resources will
likely result in a smaller munitions industrial base and that
efforts are on-going to achieve a right-sized base that remains
fully capable and viable. The committee is aware of the
collaborative work being done by the Single Manager for
Conventional Ammunition (SMCA) and industry to develop
management tools to help manage the industrial base. In
particular, the committee notes that the Industrial Base
Assessment Tool (IBAT) and the Minimum Sustaining Rate (MSR)
database will use an iterative process to enable analysis of
proposed ammunition procurement to identify potential negative
impacts on the viability or capability of the munitions
industrial base. The committee understands that avoidance of
such impacts is essential for a base that, although
considerably smaller, must continue to meet the many, varied
needs of the military services. To that end, the committee
believes that early knowledge of the budgetary plans of the
military services would allow the SMCA to assess the capability
of the munitions industrial base to respond, identify potential
impacts, and point out alternatives for meeting immediate needs
that do not jeopardize long-term viability of the munitions
industrial base.
The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to ensure
that adequate funds are made available through the annual
budget process to develop, operate, and maintain the management
tools required to support the foregoing iterative process,
including but not limited to, the IBAT and the MSR database.
M982 Excalibur program
The budget request contained $35.6 million for 416
Excalibur precision guided artillery Ib rounds.
The M982 Excalibur round is a precision guided 155mm
artillery round that is used by the Army and the Marine Corps.
The committee notes that over 745 Excalibur rounds have been
used by the Army and the Marine Corps in Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom with high success rates.
The committee supports the Excalibur program and believes
that this precision guided capability is a combat multiplier.
The committee understands the program remains on cost and
schedule with a full-rate production decision scheduled for
June 2014. The committee also understands that the Army is now
procuring the Excalibur Ib round, which has significantly
decreased program costs, while also providing increased
performance and reliability. The committee notes the Army is
currently conducting a comprehensive precision fires capability
portfolio review and that the total procurement objective for
Excalibur rounds could increase in future years. The committee
encourages the Army to consider, as part of this precision
fires capability portfolio review, the advisability and
feasibility of replacing the current inventory of Excalibur Ia-
1 and Ia-2 rounds with Ib rounds.
The committee recommends $35.6 million, the full amount of
the request, for the procurement of Excalibur Ib rounds.
Utilization of Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support initiative
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the
committee directed the Secretary of the Army to provide a
report on potential improvements to the Armament Retooling and
Manufacturing Support (ARMS) program initiative. The committee
has not received this report and understands the Secretary of
the Army plans to deliver it in June 2014.
The committee continues to believe the Army's Government-
owned ammunition plants are critical to the Nation's readiness
and to equipping the U.S. Armed Forces. The committee
understands the ARMS program was created to allow the Army to
rent to commercial companies portions of its Army Ammunition
Plants (AAPs) that were not being used in production. The
committee notes that revenues from the property rental are used
to pay for the operation, maintenance and environmental clean-
up at the facilities, and that the savings in overhead cost
lowers the production cost of the goods manufactured, as well
as funds the environmental clean-up at no cost to the taxpayer.
The committee understands the following AAPs are participating
in the ARMS program: Hawthorne Army Depot, Holston AAP, Iowa
AAP, Lake City AAP, Milan AAP, Radford AAP, and Scranton AAP.
The committee encourages the Army to maximize available
capacity at these AAPs. For example, the committee notes that
Milan AAP is using over 800,000 square feet for ARMS
activities.
The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to
continue to effectively utilize the ARMS program, and
encourages the Army to find new and effective ways to improve
upon cooperation and coordination among the Army, property
managers, commercial interests, local and state agencies, and
local economic development organizations to promote effective
utilization of ARMS.
Other Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $4.9
billion for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends
authorization of $4.7 billion, a decrease of $192.4 million,
for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Other Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of
this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Army ultra-light reconnaissance robot programs
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the
committee directed the Secretary of the Army to provide a
report on the advisability and feasibility of incorporating
ultra-light reconnaissance robot (ULRR) capability as an
enduring requirement. The report submitted to the committee by
the Secretary stated that the current Army Unmanned Systems
Management Plan validated the advisability of developing a
variety of ULRR sensors to operate at the lowest tactical
levels as part of an enduring requirement for all Active and
Reserve Component units. In addition, the Secretary's report
noted that tactical micro-robotic systems could free soldiers
from direct exposure to a multitude of lethal threats across a
host of common, squad-level mission sets. However, the report
also noted some technical challenges, including radio frequency
spectrum issues involved in systems used during Operation
Enduring Freedom, once back in the United States.
Given the substantial investment in ULRR by the Army to-
date and the conclusions provided in the report, the committee
encourages the Army to transition ULRR into a formal program-
of-record so that any technical, logistical, or training issues
associated with incorporation of ULRR into Army units may be
resolved.
Body armor industrial base risk mitigation
The committee understands that the body armor industrial
base includes the combat helmet industrial base, soft armor
industrial base, and hard body armor industrial base. In the
committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee
directed the Secretary of the Army to provide an assessment of
the long term sustainment requirements for the body armor
industrial base, to include supply chains for combat helmets,
soft armor, and hard armor components. The committee received
this assessment in March 2014.
The committee understands that the military services would
prefer to maintain at least two viable industrial base vendors
for each area of the industrial base in order to mitigate
serious risk, maintain competition for better body armor
technology, as well as to retain required surge capacity. The
committee is concerned that current funding profiles may not
allow for two viable vendors in each area. The committee
understands that without additional resources or additional
contracts the industrial base would default to only one
supplier in August 2015. The committee understands that
specialty materials such as ballistic fibers and ceramics are
raw material building blocks for body armor systems, and that
few profitable applications for these materials exist outside
of Department of Defense body armor programs. While foreign
military sales (FMS) could offer industry an additional means
for the manufacture and sale of various body armor components,
there has been limited FMS interest from foreign countries.
Based on this required assessment, as well as other
assessments the committee has reviewed from the Defense
Logistics Agency, the committee understands that there is
significant risk to the hard armor industrial base both in the
near-term and the long-term. The committee is concerned that
the two qualified manufacturers are producing at below minimum
sustaining rates, and that this could jeopardize their
financial stability and viability beginning in fiscal year
2015. The committee also notes that one of the hard armor
vendors is the sole supplier of a particular ceramic raw
material to the Department of Defense and believes that the
Department of Defense may lose the capability to meet surge
requirements beginning in fiscal year 2015. The committee is
concerned that once a capability, such as hard body armor,
disappears and production lines are dismantled, it is projected
that it would take at least 18 months to reconstitute that
capability.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends an increase
of $80.0 million in operation and maintenance, Army, to help
mitigate risk to the hard armor industrial base and maintain
two viable vendors.
Tactical generator recapitalization
The committee is aware that generators are the biggest
consumers of diesel fuel in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
for the Army and Marine Corps. Given Department of Defense
directives to reduce costs through increased fuel efficiency,
the committee supports service decisions to procure next
generation tactical generators like the Advanced Medium Mobile
Power Sources (AMMPS), which could produce over 20 percent
greater fuel efficiency and 40 percent greater reliability than
the current fleet of Tactical Quiet Generators (TQGs). The
committee understands that when the AMMPS fleet is fully
deployed and operating, the Department of Defense estimates it
will realize an annual savings of $745.0 million and 52.0
million gallons of diesel fuel over TQGs.
The committee expects the military services to consider
robust goals for increased fuel efficiency and reliability as
part of any tactical generator recapitalization strategy.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
brief the congressional defense committees no later than
November 3, 2014 on service plans to recapitalize tactical
generator systems, associated fuel efficiency and reliability
targets, and the financial impact that achieving these targets
would have on fuel expenditures.
Family of heavy tactical vehicles
The budget request contained $28.4 million for the family
of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV). The budget request also
contained $89.2 million for the Palletized Load System (PLS)
Extended Service Program (ESP). The budget request contained no
funding for the Heavy Expanded Mobile Tactical Truck (HEMTT)
extended service program (ESP).
The committee notes with concern that the budget request
included no funding for the HEMTT ESP within the FHTV program.
As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee is concerned
about the long-term viability of the tactical wheeled vehicle
industrial base. The committee notes the Army had originally
programmed $250.0 million for HEMTT ESP over the Future Years
Defense Program, but that funding has now been reinvested into
other outstanding, higher-priority requirements within FHTV,
notably the PLS ESP. The committee understands that there still
remains at least a 3-year requirement for HEMTT ESP.
The committee is aware that based on the HEMTT ESP
requirement identified in previous Army budget submissions, the
Secretary of the Army does plan to include funding for HEMTT
ESP in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget request
for fiscal year 2015. While the actual timing of the submission
of the OCO budget request is still uncertain, the committee
believes additional funding would be required to help maintain
balance in the heavy tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base.
The committee recommends $50.0 million, an increase of
$50.0 million, for continued production of HEMTT ESP vehicles.
Family of medium tactical vehicles
The budget request contained no funds for the family of
medium tactical vehicles (FMTVs).
The committee is concerned about the current and future
viability of the tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base. The
committee is concerned that while budget request justification
materials indicate that no funding is required for new FMTV
procurement in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016, the out-
year funding requests include $248.9 million and $249.1 million
in fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018, respectively. The
committee believes that this strategy of stopping and
restarting mature production lines is inefficient and
problematic for the medium tactical wheeled vehicle industrial
base.
The committee believes that smooth and predictable funding
levels, and not abrupt and large swings in funding and
production requirements, would result in the best outcome for
taxpayers, the industrial base, the military services, and,
ultimately, the warfighter. The committee recommends mitigating
any unnecessary breaks in FMTV production, and where possible,
encourages the Army to maintain at least minimum sustaining
rates of production. The committee understands the Secretary of
the Army has requested additional funding for new FMTV
production in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget
request. The committee believes that these funds would help to
mitigate some breaks in FMTV production, but notes that there
is uncertainty over the timing of the OCO budget request. The
committee believes the Army should realign the current funding
profile for FMTV production across the Future Years Defense
Program.
The committee recommends $50.0 million, an increase of
$50.0 million, for continued production of new FMTVs.
Military combat eye protection program
The budget request contained no funds for a military combat
eye protection program.
The committee notes that requests for military combat
eyewear are usually included in the Rapid Fielding Initiative
(RFI) Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget request,
which is based on providing RFI equipment to all deploying
soldiers. The committee has not yet received the OCO budget
request for fiscal year 2015. The committee understands the RFI
leverages current programs, lessons learned from Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, as well as
commercial-off-the-shelf technology to give soldiers increased
survivability, lethality, and mobility. The committee expects
funding for military combat eyewear to be requested through the
OCO budget request.
The committee understands the Army's military combat eye
protection program was developed to ensure a standardized level
of ballistic and environmental performance for protective
eyewear. The committee understands the Army has created an
Authorized Protective Eyewear List (APEL) that allows Program
Executive Office-Soldier to offer more choices in combat
ballistic eyewear, which improves soldier acceptance and use of
protective eyewear.
The committee commends the Army for establishing the APEL,
encourages the continued rapid fielding of ballistic protective
eyewear to all military personnel so that they can ``train as
they fight'', as well as to provide protection against a wide
array of threats while deployed and in training. The committee
encourages the Secretaries of the military departments to
consider the potential training and operational benefits of
issuing combat protective eyewear to all basic military
trainees.
Mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles
The budget request contained $14.7 million for mine-
resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicle modifications.
The committee recognizes that mine-resistant ambush-
protected vehicles were rapidly procured to address critical
warfighter requirements in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
and the Republic of Iraq. The committee notes these vehicles
proved invaluable at protecting military service personnel from
improvised explosive devices, and saved lives. The committee
understands that current MRAP vehicle quantities exceed future
requirements set forth by the military services. The committee
recognizes the military services have carefully considered
current and future requirements, as well as their ability to
man, equip, train, and sustain MRAP vehicles to determine which
vehicles should be retained as part of their enduring
capability of protected mobility, route clearance, and
Explosive Ordnance Disposal platforms. The committee
understands the military services will retain the most capable
MRAP vehicles to meet military operational and training needs.
The committee notes that approximately 13,000 excess MRAP
vehicles will first be offered to other U.S. Government
entities and then to potential foreign military sales (FMS) or
excess defense article (EDA) customers. The committee
understands that if there are no U.S. Government, FMS, or EDA
claimants, the vehicles will follow approved disposition
procedures for demilitarization.
The committee believes there may be some operational value
in using MRAP vehicles as mobile command posts at echelons
above brigade. Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of
Staff of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee
on Armed Services not later than February 13, 2015, on the
advisability and feasibility of using MRAP vehicles as part of
current mobile command post modernization strategies. The
briefing should include the following:
(1) An assessment of the potential cost savings, manpower
requirement reductions, and other associated operations and
maintenance savings;
(2) The status and results of vehicle testing to meet the
goals of mobile command post modernization;
(3) An assessment of the current status of command vehicle
configurations, including age of the vehicles, number of
vehicles required, manpower requirements per command post, and
guidance on active fielding timelines for replacement vehicles;
and
(4) The suitability, cost, and cost avoidance available
through adaptive reuse of existing vehicles, including the MRAP
vehicle.
Personal dosimetry for protection in Chemical Biological Radiological
Nuclear and Explosive environments
The committee remains concerned about the increasing
proliferation of Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear and
Explosive (CBRNE) Weapons of Mass Destruction, and believes
that maintaining adequate modern protective equipment is of
critical importance for the safety of U.S. forces in CBRNE
environments. The committee notes that in regard to
radiological hazards, accurate dosimetry is critical to the
forecast of type, severity, and expected time of onset of
symptoms, information needed to predict a person's fitness for
duty, and the provision of combat readiness information. The
committee notes that the Department of the Army last validated
a requirement for Individual Personal Dosimeters in 1975.
However, the nuclear and radiological threat environment facing
the Joint Force has changed dramatically over the past four
decades and dosimeter technology has also improved. The
committee is aware of efforts within the Department of Defense
to develop a Joint Personal Dosimeter (JPD) and validate an
updated requirement for the JPD. The committee understands that
the JPD is expected to enter miestone C late in fiscal year
2015. The committee is concerned, however, that procuring JPDs
to replace legacy Army systems will not begin until 2020, at
the earliest. In addition, the committee notes that the Army
currently has nearly 8,500 legacy systems programmed for
replacement.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to begin JPD
procurement to replace legacy Army systems as soon after the
milestone C decision as the availability of funds will allow.
Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the committee by September 1, 2014, on
the status of the JPD program and the efforts to validate an
updated dosimetry requirement for the JPD. The briefing should
include any recommendations that the Secretary has to begin
procurement of JPDs earlier than 2020.
Replacement of Enhanced Position Location Reporting system
The committee notes that the Army currently has a mix of
brigade combat teams (BCTs) with different tactical
communications architectures, with most Army BCTs equipped with
the Blue Force Tracker system. Some Army units, and elements of
the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force still use the
Enhanced Position Location Reporting system (EPLRS) for certain
communications functions. In addition, some allied nations also
use EPLRS. The committee understands that the Army intends to
retire the remaining EPLRS systems it uses between fiscal years
2014-17.
Overall, the committee supports the Army's plan to
modernize its tactical communications network. However, the
committee is concerned about the potential impact the
retirement that the EPLRS system may have on the Army's ability
to operate effectively in joint and combined operations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than October 1, 2014, on the details of the Army's plan
to retire the EPLRS system. The briefing should address any
potential joint or combined operational issues with other
military services and allied nations that may result from the
Army retiring the system while it remains in use. In addition,
the briefing should be coordinated with the appropriate Joint
Staff offices that oversee requirements in the area of tactical
communications.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $13.1
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee
recommends authorization of $13.5 billion, an increase of
$411.6 million, for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Aircraft Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
EA-18G Stretch
The committee understands and supports the Department of
the Navy's requirement for additional airborne electronic
attack (AEA) aircraft; based on the Department's Congressional
testimony and formal war fighting campaign analysis.
Controlling the electromagnetic spectrum is paramount to strike
capability in future contested environments. The EA-18G Growler
provides full spectrum capabilities for the Navy and Joint
Forces. However, the Department insufficiently funded the
Growler requirement, threatening shutdown of the manufacturing
line. In concert with the procurement of 5 Growlers in FY15,
the committee encourages the Chief of Naval Operations to
utilize the Advanced Procurement funds for F/A-18 E/F aircraft
in FY14 ($75 million) to extend the production line to a
minimum production rate of 2 aircraft per month. This extended
production will ensure an AEA manufacturing line is in place
for future procurement. The committee directs the Department of
the Navy to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by
September 1, 2014 on the ability to extend the production line
to a minimum production rate of 2 aircraft per month. The
committee urges the Navy to provide the necessary funds to
fulfill its AEA requirement in Fiscal Year 2016, and if needed,
beyond.
H-1 engine program upgrade
The budget request contained $45.0 million for H-1
upgrades, but included no funding to upgrade the AH-1Z's legacy
T700-401 engine to the T700-401C configuration.
The T700-401C engine is used in the Marine Corps' AH-1Z and
UH-1Y helicopters, has unique parts and provides improved power
compared to the older T700-401 engine. The committee notes that
the Marine Corps plans to procure 189 AH-1Z helicopters, and
understands that 36 of those aircraft are not currently planned
to be upgraded with T700-401C engines. The committee further
understands that having 2 different engines for the fleet of
180 AH-1Zs will result in a reduction of available helicopters
since the T700-401 engine is becoming increasingly obsolete.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than September 19, 2014, on the Marine Corps' plan
for either upgrading the 36 AH-1Z helicopters to the T700-401C
engine configuration, or how the Marine Corps plans to
incorporate the 36 AH-1Z helicopters with the T700-401 engine
into the AH-1Z fleet with maintenance and logistic support.
MQ-8 Fire Scout
The budget request contained $40.7 million for MQ-8 Fire
Scout procurement.
The MQ-8 Fire Scout is vertical take-off and landing
unmanned aerial vehicle (VTUAV) which provides real-time and
non-real time intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(ISR) data to tactical users without the use of manned aircraft
or reliance on limited theater or national assets. The
committee notes that the budget request contained no funds for
procurement of MQ-8 Fire Scout VTUAVs, but contained funds for
procurement of MQ-8 control stations, ancillary equipment,
training equipment, support equipment, technical support and
logistics, which are critically needed to outfit the ships on
which the MQ-8 is deployed.
While the committee supports the budget request, it is
disappointed that the Department of the Navy has chosen not to
fund procurement of aerial vehicles in fiscal year 2015. The
committee continues to view the MQ-8 VTUAV as a critical ISR
asset and encourages the Department of the Navy to fully
execute its fiscal year 2015 budget request, and include the
procurement of additional MQ-8 VTUAVs in the budget request for
fiscal year 2016 as well as in subsequent years.
MV-22 carrier onboard delivery
The committee understands that the Department of the Navy
has conducted an assessment of whether the MV-22 could be used
to replace the C-2A Greyhound aircraft currently performing the
carrier onboard delivery (COD) mission for the Department of
the Navy. The committee further understands that the MV-22's
unique combination of speed, range, and vertical agility
creates possibilities for transforming the way that carrier
onboard delivery is accomplished.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than October 24, 2014, on the Department of the
Navy's assessment of the MV-22 to perform the COD mission, any
analysis of alternatives accomplished to replace the C-2A
aircraft, key performance parameters required of a C-2A
replacement aircraft, health and status of the C-2A fleet, and
the current schedule to procure a C-2A Greyhound replacement
aircraft.
UH-1 Mobile Aircrew Restraint System retrofits
The committee understands that aircrew members have been
ejected from helicopters and seriously injured during crashes
and hard landings. The committee notes that the Mobile Aircrew
Restraint System (MARS) is a device developed and designed to
prevent highly mobile aircrew from being ejected during a crash
event and to provide fall protection when working near open
aircraft doors or hatches. The committee encourages the Marine
Corps to use available funding to procure and install
additional MARS kits in Marine Corps UH-1Y and other aircraft.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $3.2
billion for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends
authorization of $3.3 billion, an increase of $63.0 million,
for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $771.9
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps.
The committee recommends authorization of $771.9 million, full
funding of the request, for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps program are
identified in division D of this Act.
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $14.4
billion for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee
recommends authorization of $15.1 billion, an increase of
$659.6 million, for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Integrated communication systems
The committee is aware that advances in technology have
enabled the development and fielding of integrated
communications systems that combine the capabilities of legacy
platforms, including Integrated Voice Communications System,
Tactical Variant Switch and Secure Voice System, into a single
system. Examples in the U.S. inventory include the U.S. Coast
Guard's newly fielded National Security and Fast Response
Cutter program.
The committee recognizes that the combination of legacy
systems into one system has the potential to reduce acquisition
and maintenance costs while simplifying training and providing
increased operational effectiveness to ship commanders and
crews. These benefits apply to both retrofit of legacy
platforms and the outfitting of new platforms.
The committee encourages the Navy to examine these new
integrated communications systems, and if proven cost effective
and beneficial, to consider changing program requirements to
specify the use of such systems.
Joint High Speed Vessel
The committee is aware of the premium that the Department
of Defense places on the ability of U.S. military forces to
deploy quickly to a full spectrum of engagements. In addition,
the Department values the ability of U.S. forces to debark and
embark in a wide range of port environments, from modern to
austere.
The committee notes that the Joint High Speed Vessel
(JHSV), crewed by Military Sealift Command mariners, has
demonstrated the ability to transport military forces, as well
as humanitarian relief personnel and materiel, in a manner that
is responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, and sustainable.
The USNS Spearhead (JHSV-1) is currently deployed to the U.S.
6th Fleet area of responsibility.
The JHSV is designed to transport 600 short tons of
military cargo 1,200 nautical miles at an average speed of 35
knots in sea state 3. JHSVs support Navy Expeditionary Combat
Command and riverine forces, theater cooperating missions,
Seabees, and Marine Corps and Army transportation. The original
procurement objective for the JHSV was 18 ships. This
procurement number was lowered to 10 JHSVs as part of the
budget request for fiscal year 2013.
The committee notes that the JHSV has the ability to
support multiple branches of the military services, provide
high-speed intra-theater sealift, operate in littoral
environments and austere port environments, and support
humanitarian and disaster relief activities. The committee also
notes that the ship's construction line is still operational.
For these reasons, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees
by April 1, 2015, on the operational benefits and cost savings
associated with continuing to procure JHSVs. The report should
specifically address the costs and benefits of buying the eight
additional JHSVs that were originally part of the program.
Littoral Combat Ship
The committee is concerned about the survivability,
lethality and endurance of the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS), as noted by the Government Accountability Office and
others. In February 2014, after reviewing preliminary
assessments and evaluations of the LCS, the Secretary of
Defense reduced the total number of LCS seaframes to 32 from
the planned procurement of 52 and also directed the Navy to
submit alternate proposals to procure ``a capable and lethal
small surface combatant generally consistent with the
capabilities of a frigate.'' The Secretary noted the importance
of not only presence but capability and power projection as the
foundation of the Navy's effectiveness and directed the Navy to
study options to include a completely new design, existing ship
designs (including the LCS), and a modified LCS. The Chief of
Naval Operations has directed a Small Surface Combatant Task
Force to report on these results by July 31, 2014.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees by April 1, 2015, that examines the
Department of the Navy's study and its implications for the
procurement of future small surface combatants. This report
should assess:
(1) The study's methodologies and key assumptions;
(2) Any alternate ship design(s) and modifications to the
Littoral Combat Ship that the Navy evaluated, including
expectations of cost, schedule, and requirements; and
(3) The extent to which the study was consistent with the
approach of a formal analysis of alternatives, as set forth in
the Department of Defense acquisition policy.
Mobile Landing Platform Afloat Forward Staging Base
The committee notes that the most recent 30-year
shipbuilding plan projects a requirement for a third Mobile
Landing Platform (MLP) Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB)
variant ship in fiscal year 2017. Full funding for the second
MLP AFSB ship was provided in fiscal year 2014. No advance
procurement funds for the third MLP AFSB ship are currently
programmed in either fiscal year 2015 or fiscal year 2016.
Considering the expanded requirement for the MLP AFSB variant
ships and the success of the ongoing shipbuilding program, the
committee is concerned that a 3-year procurement gap between
ships will increase costs, impact the industrial base, and
delay delivery of important capabilities. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to explore
possible approaches to minimize a production break between
ships, including advance procurement funding, for the third
AFSB ship.
Moored Training Ship
The budget request contained $801.7 million in Shipbuilding
and Conversion, Navy, for the Moored Training Ship program.
The committee notes that the Moored Training Ship program
is intended to convert two decommissioned nuclear attack
submarines into training platforms for nuclear propulsion crew
members. The committee also notes that this program has
experienced a $556.8 million cost overrun for the two
conversions compared to fiscal year 2014 budget projections,
and that this represents an 34 percent cost increase. The
committee further notes that $229.7 million of this cost
increase is included in the fiscal year 2015 budget request.
While the committee understands that the Moored Training Ship
program is not a formal acquisition program, the committee
remains concerned that the 34 percent cost increase would be
significantly over the critical cost growth threshold for major
defense acquisition programs, established pursuant to section
2433, title 10, United States Code, also known as a ``Nunn-
McCurdy breach''. As a result, elsewhere in this Act, the
committee includes a provision that would require a review to
be provided to Congress similar to that required for a ``Nunn-
McCurdy breach''.
The committee recommends $572.0 million, a decrease of
$229.7 million, in shipbuilding and conversion, Navy, for the
Moored Training Ship program.
National Defense Sealift Fund
The committee notes that the Navy is proposing to
disestablish the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) and, as
part of this, is proposing to shift funding for new
construction ships from the NDSF to the Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy (SCN) account. NDSF was created by section
1077 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993 (Public Law 102-484) in part to fund new ship construction
related to Department of Defense sealift ships and was later
amended to permit the funding of new construction Navy
auxiliary ships. NDSF is not a procurement account, but a
revolving fund, and appropriations made available to the fund
are not executed in the same way as dollars made available to
SCN. In addition, new-construction ships funded through the
NDSF, unlike SCN-funded ships, must have certain major
components manufactured in the United States. The committee is
concerned that transferring appropriations from NDSF to SCN for
certain ships could result in potential cost increases as well
as a reduction in major shipboard components that are
manufactured in the United States.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to review the proposal to disestablish the NDSF and the budget
recommendation to appropriate new construction Navy auxiliary
ships through the SCN account. The Secretary is directed to
prepare a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2015, detailing how the Navy would proceed if the NDSF
were disestablished, how the Navy would ensure that there would
be no cost increases, and how the Navy would plan to maximize
the use of major shipboard components manufactured in the
United States in the construction of Department of Defense
sealift and Navy auxiliary ships.
Shipbuilding warranties and guarantees
The committee notes that the Government Accountability
Office recently reported that the Navy continues to accept
delivery of ships with large numbers of deficiencies. Depending
on the contract type under which the ships were constructed,
the Government may share a significant portion of the costs
associated with fixing these deficiencies. In order to better
assess the magnitude of this issue, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2015, on the
efficacy of warranties, guarantees, and other such mechanisms
that are used in U.S. shipbuilding programs. This report should
have a particular focus on:
(1) The extent to which these mechanisms are used in
Government and commercial shipbuilding programs;
(2) How the Government assigns responsibility for a defect
and corrects such problems; and
(3) The extent to which these mechanisms may reduce the
Government's exposure to additional costs resulting from
defective workmanship or equipment.
Surface ship test platform
The committee notes that the Manta test platform concept
has been successfully used to evaluate submarine sensors at a
greatly reduced cost compared to using a full-size submarine
for test and evaluation. The committee believes that a similar
surface ship test system could be utilized to test and evaluate
existing and emerging sonar systems for surface ships.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2015, to include a cost-benefit assessment of
designing and fabricating a purpose-built surface ship test
craft that could be utilized to test and evaluate existing and
emerging sonar systems for surface ships.
Other Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $6.0
billion for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends
authorization of $6.2 billion, an increase of $222.3 million,
for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Other Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of
this Act.
Procurement, Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $983.4
million for Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends
authorization of $958.2 million, a decrease of $25.1 million,
for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Marine Corps Video Scout MC/3 System
The committee supports the potential procurement and rapid
fielding of the Marine Corps Video Scout MC/3 Remote Video
Viewing Terminal (RVVT) to provide full motion video
communications and improve tactical processing exploitation and
dissemination capability. The committee notes that RVVT systems
allow viewing and exploitation of video and metadata from
multiple unmanned air, ground, surface, sub-surface systems.
The committee understands that the Video Scout MC/3 RVVT
program is intended to be an element of the Marine Corps air
operations command and control system and is intended to
increase Marine Corps intelligence, surveillance,
reconnaissance and direct fire effectiveness through improved
software capability, two-way communications, and smart antenna
capability.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $11.5
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $11.4 billion, a decrease of $122.7
million, for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Air National Guard MQ-1/MQ-9 ground-based sense and avoid systems
The committee acknowledges that the operating configuration
and equipment for Air National Guard (ANG) MQ-1/9 units, along
with international and Federal aviation safety requirements,
may limit the ability to operate in international and domestic
airspace outside of military restricted areas. MQ-1/9 flight
operations require specific, International Civil Aviation
Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, or foreign
authority approval which restricts the aircraft to insufficient
airspace, and specific or limited routing and altitudes. Such
restrictions prevent optimal aircrew training and degrade
operational flexibility during Federal and state missions.
However, the committee notes that the Department of Defense has
made significant progress developing ground-based sense and
avoid (GBSAA) systems, and that the Department of the Army is
expected to begin GBSAA operations at five locations in fiscal
year 2015. The committee believes that ANG MQ-1/9 operations
centers configured with a GBSAA system could improve and
expedite the assimilation of the MQ-1/9 into operations in both
international and domestic airspace, and encourages the
Department of the Air Force to work with the Department of the
Army to deploy GBSAA systems where appropriate.
Battlefield Airborne Communications Node program
The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force
Battlefield Airborne Communication Node (BACN) program has been
an effective program fielded through rapid acquisition
authorities to support Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation
Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn. The BACN program
currently uses EQ-4B and E-11A aircraft to host the BACN
communications relay system. The committee is concerned,
however, that in the absence of continued Overseas Contingency
Operations funding that the program may be at risk.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the
Air Force to rapidly transition the BACN program to a base
budget program of record to ensure that this capability is
maintained in the Department of the Air Force for the long
term.
C-130H Avionics Modernization Program and propulsion system upgrades
The budget request contained $35.9 million for C-130H
aircraft modifications, but contained no funding for the
Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) or propulsion system
upgrades.
The committee notes that the 2014 Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) states that the Air Force will maintain 300
combat-coded C-130H and C-130J aircraft in the tactical airlift
fleet inventory to support requirements and objectives in
support of the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. In the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014
(division C of Public Law 113-76), Congress authorized and
appropriated $47.7 million for AMP and $41.7 million for
propulsion system upgrades.
The committee is disappointed that the Secretary of the Air
Force invested nearly $1.5 billion of taxpayer dollars for
engineering, manufacturing, development, and testing of the C-
130H AMP program, but has no plans to continue procurement and
installation of C-130H AMP onto C-130H aircraft. In addition,
the committee notes that the Secretary has no plans to
modernize or upgrade the C-130H propulsion system in order to
increase reliability, capability, fuel efficiency and on-wing
time of the engine, as well as decrease the overall cost and
maintenance burden of the current propulsion system. The
Secretary has not provided the committee with a coherent plan
for fleet-wide recapitalization of the C-130H fleet or
explained how the Air Force plans to maintain medium-sized
intra-theater airlift capacity and capability within both the
Active and Reserve Components. The committee understands that
the cost to continue the C-130 AMP program, as compared to the
costs to individually complete modernization and upgrade
requirements to keep the C-130H aircraft capable and relevant,
are roughly the same. However, the committee believes that by
failing to take actions to modernize the C-130H fleet in the
very near term with C-130 AMP and propulsion systems upgrades,
recapitalization costs, mitigation of obsolescence and
diminishing manufacturing sources costs, or operating and
sustainment costs will become so cost prohibitive in the future
that the only course of action available to the Secretary will
result in the divestiture of the C-130H aircraft from the Air
Force inventory. Knowing that the majority of the C-130H fleet
resides within the Reserve Components of the Air Force and that
the C-130H should remain reliable, capable, and relevant to
meeting current and future warfighter needs, the committee is
concerned with the approach that the Secretary has taken with
regard to the lack of robust modernization and upgrade of C-
130H aircraft, if the aircraft is to have a service-life
through 2040 as currently planned. Furthermore, C-130 AMP is
estimated to reduce total ownership costs of the C-130H fleet
by over 25 percent as compared to not modernizing the aircraft.
The committee believes that if the Secretary is willing to
expend at least $3.2 billion for two new presidential aircraft
to achieve a benefit of a modernized and digital cockpit for
the aircrew to execute an important mission in a benign flight
environment, the Secretary should apply similar logic by
spending significantly less than $3.2 billion for 179 C-130H
aircraft that would provide a modernized and digital cockpit
for C-130 aircrews that are required to tactically employ in
more strenuous and dangerous flight conditions.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision
that would preserve the $1.5 billion taxpayer investment in the
C-130 AMP program and would prohibit the Secretary from
canceling the C-130 AMP program. Further, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Air Force to notify the congressional
defense committees at any time the combat-coded fleet of C-130H
and C-130J aircraft decreases below the 300 combat-coded
aircraft prescribed in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review.
Finally, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) and the Secretary of the Air Force to immediately
obligate authorized appropriations provided in fiscal year 2013
and fiscal year 2014 to continue C-130 AMP.
Therefore, the committee recommends $109.7 million, an
increase of $73.8 million, for C-130H propulsion system
propeller and engine control upgrades, continued acquisition
and installation of C-130 AMP kits, and no funding to begin an
alternative communications, navigation, surveillance and air
traffic management (CNS/ATM) system program.
F-16 block 40/50 mission training centers
The budget request contained no funds for the procurement
of F-16 block 40/50 mission training centers for the Air
National Guard.
An F-16 block 40/50 mission training center (MTC) is a
distributed mission operations-capable flight simulator for F-
16 block 40 and 50 weapon systems. Each MTC includes high-
fidelity simulator cockpits, instructor operator stations, a
threat server, and briefing and debriefing capability. Each MTC
is also capable of linking to geographically distributed high-
fidelity combat and combat support training devices, including
command and control and intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance systems. This capability allows warfighters at
home station to exercise and train at the operational and
strategic levels of war as well as to conduct networked unit-
level training.
The committee notes that F-16 block 40/50 MTCs are
currently planned in the continental United States for Hill Air
Force Base (AFB) in Utah, Shaw AFB in South Carolina, and
Holloman AFB in New Mexico. The committee understands that
other F-16 block 40 or 50 pilots located in the continental
United States would need to travel to one of the three MTC
locations, and believes that locating two additional MTCs in
the Midwestern United States would save travel costs and make
the F-16 block 40/50 MTC more available to Active Duty, Reserve
and Air National Guard F-16 block 40 and 50 pilots, resulting
in decreased travel costs and enhanced readiness.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the
Air Force to budget for two additional MTCs which would be
located at F-16 Air National Guard units in the Midwestern
United States.
F-16 modernization
The budget request contained $133.1 million in PE 27133F
for development of F-16 capabilities, but contained no funds
for the development of the combat avionics programmed extension
suite (CAPES), development of the computer modular receiver
exciter (C-MoRE), or for development of the scalable agile beam
radar (SABR) upgrade.
CAPES would upgrade the F-16 blocks 40, 42, 50, and 52 with
a new active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar, a new
electronic warfare system, an integrated broadcast system, and
a center display unit. The CAPES upgrade would increase the F-
16's survivability against emerging threats. C-MoRE is a
reliability improvement demonstration program for the APG-
68(V1) radar of the Air National Guard's F-16 block 30 aircraft
fleet that would demonstrate an electronic system upgrade while
retaining the radar's mechanically-scanned array. SABR is an F-
16 radar modernization program that would replace the
mechanically-scanned array with an AESA radar that would
enhance F-16 mission capabilities, provide improved electronic
protection, and provide a three-fold increase in radar
reliability.
The committee notes that the budget request proposes the
cancellation of CAPES. While the committee is disappointed that
CAPES could not be funded, it understands that difficult
choices were required due to budget reductions. The committee
understands that the Department of the Air Force is reviewing
future F-16 capability upgrade options for fiscal year 2016,
and believes that the Department of the Air Force may have more
affordable options to improve the capability of the F-16 fleet.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department of the Air
Force to consider both the C-MoRE and the SABR upgrade.
The committee further notes that the Department of the Air
Force's 976-aircraft F-16 fleet is 50 percent of the
Department's fighter force, and that the F-16 block 40, 42, 50,
and 52 fleets are likely to remain in the Department's
inventory for the next 15 to 20 years. The committee believes
that capability upgrades to the F-16 fleet are vitally
important to address future threats. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees not later than February
16, 2015, that describes the plan for capability upgrades to
the F-16 fleet including costs by year and by appropriation,
risks of not upgrading the F-16 block 40, 42, 50, and 52 fleets
with the CAPES upgrade, and the effect of the cancellation of
CAPES on the Air National Guard's F-16 fleet.
High-altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
Over the past 2 years, the committee has supported the
Global Hawk Block 30 high-altitude unmanned aerial system and
supports the current Department of the Air Force plan to retain
the Global Hawk Block 30 for the high-altitude intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) mission. The committee
notes that the Department of the Air Force has determined that
Global Hawk operating costs have decreased while the Global
Hawk Block 30 fleet has flown an increased number of hours
compared to previous years in support of the combatant
commanders.
While the committee was pleased that the Air Force
requested funding for Global Hawk Block 30 in the budget
request for fiscal year 2015, the committee is concerned with
the Department of the Air Force's plan to retire the U-2 fleet
in fiscal year 2016. While the committee realizes that the
Department can never fully meet the ISR demand of combatant
commanders, reasonable and necessary ISR requests appear very
likely to go unfilled if the current high-altitude airborne ISR
collection capabilities of the U-2 are terminated. The
committee notes that section 143 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66)
required the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit a report on
all high-altitude ISR systems. The committee has not yet
received this report and believes that any action to retire, or
prepare to retire U-2 aircraft would be premature prior to the
committee's review of the report. To ensure that no actions are
taken to retire or prepare to retire the U-2 aircraft in fiscal
year 2015, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a
provision that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise
made available for fiscal year 2015 to make significant changes
to retire, prepare to retire, or place U-2 aircraft in storage.
The committee also notes that section 133 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) limits the retirement of U-2 aircraft until equal or
greater ISR capability is available to commanders of the
combatant commands, and believes that the Department of the Air
Force plan to retire the entire fleet of U-2s in fiscal year
2016 is inconsistent with this provision.
The committee supports the Department of the Air Force
efforts to upgrade the Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft to meet
the requirements of the combatant commanders, but notes that
this will take several years beyond the planned retirement of
the U-2. In light of the known gaps, the committee has concerns
with any plan that will leave the combatant commanders with
less overall capacity and capability than they have today.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees and the congressional intelligence committees by
February 16, 2015, that would establish a phased high-altitude
airborne ISR transition plan which fields capability at the
same time or before the U-2 aircraft retirement, and which
would result in equal or greater capability available to the
commanders of the combatant commands. This plan should include
the costs, schedule, and identification of fielded high-
altitude ISR capability and capacity. If retirement of the U-2
would result in decreased capability or capacity for high-
altitude reconnaissance, the report should also include the
Department of the Air Force plans to mitigate the effects of
the decreased capability or capacity.
KC-10 Aerial Refueling Aircraft Force Structure
The committee notes that the President's request for the
Future Years Defense Program 2016-19 did not take into account
Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) sequestration
level Department of Defense spending limitations.
The committee understands that if the spending limitations
in Public Law 112-25 are imposed on the Department of the Air
Force beyond fiscal year 2015, then additional reductions in
critical capabilities and aircraft force structure will likely
be necessary in order for the Department of the Air Force to
comply with its share of spending authority. The committee
understands from briefings and discussions with Air Force
officials that the KC-10 Stratotanker aircraft could succumb to
sequestration impacts. The committee is concerned that a
divestment of a high-demand, low-density aircraft such as the
KC-10 could have detrimental impacts for the Department of
Defense in meeting its global reach and global power
objectives, as it relates to supporting the 2012 Defense
Strategic Guidance. The committee also notes that the
Commander, U.S. Transportation Command (CUSTC) has validated
that the requirement for aerial refueling aircraft capability
is 567 aircraft. The Department of the Air Force currently has
only 454 aerial refueling aircraft, resulting in a deficit of
113 aircraft short of the CUSTC requirement. The Air Force is
not projected to have 567 aerial refueling tankers in its
inventory, assuming that no KC-10 or KC-135 are divested, prior
to delivery of the 112th KC-46 tanker aircraft in the next
decade.
Therefore, elsewhere in this title, the committee includes
a provision that would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force
from using any funds or taking any action during fiscal year
2015 to divest or transfer, or prepare to divest or transfer,
any KC-10 aerial refueling aircraft of the Air Force. In
addition, if the President's request for fiscal year 2016
proposes to divest the KC-10 aerial refueling aircraft from the
Department of the Air Force, the committee directs the
Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, in coordination with
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit to the
congressional defense committees at the time of the fiscal year
2016 budget submission, an operational risk assessment and
mitigation strategy that evaluates the military's ability to
meet the requirements and objectives stipulated in the
Department's Guidance for Employment of the Force, the Joint
Strategic Capabilities Plan, and all geographical combatant
commander steady-state rotational and warfighting surge
contingency operational planning documents.
KC-46 Aerial Refueling Aircraft program
The budget request contained $1.6 billion for KC-46 Low-
Rate Initial Production Lot 1 (LRIP 1) procurement of seven
aircraft.
The committee notes that the KC-46 program has been
executing to date without any requirements changes, and
appreciates the requirements discipline that the Secretary of
the Air Force has maintained since the beginning of the
program. The committee supports the KC-46 program and the
capability the aircraft will bring to the Air Force when it is
eventually fielded. The committee also realizes that fiscal
efficiencies can be garnered from the program at this point in
time without a significant impact to program execution.
Therefore, the committee recommends $1.4 billion, a
decrease of $226.1 million, for KC-46 LRIP 1 procurement of six
aircraft to support higher priorities contained elsewhere in
this Act. The committee expresses that the Secretary of the Air
Force should not consider this as punitive action against the
KC-46 program, and the committee expects the Secretary to
maintain the same Future Years Defense Program procurement
quantity of aircraft despite the one aircraft decrease in the
fiscal year 2015 budget. The committee understands from
discussions with Air Force program officials that a decrease of
1 aircraft in LRIP 1 will not have a significant impact to
program execution and should not hinder the ability for 18 KC-
46 aircraft to be delivered by the contractual required assets
availability date of the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017.
Spare engine requirements and inventory for F-15E and F-16 aircraft
The committee is aware that the Air Force has established a
requirement for 25 additional spare engines for its F-15E and
F-16 aircraft fleets, as validated by the Propulsion
Requirements Study (PRS). The committee believes that, given
the key role that the F-15 and F-16 aircraft will play in
meeting fighter requirements until the F-35 aircraft is fielded
in sufficient numbers, the extension of the F-15 and F-16
fleets will require a reliable base of spare engines. The
committee is concerned, however, that while the Department of
the Air Force has identified this requirement, it has not yet
taken action to fulfill it. In addition, the committee
understands that the F-100 production line is currently planned
to terminate at the end of 2016 based on current orders.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by October 1, 2014, which details the Department of
the Air Force's plan to address the unfulfilled requirement for
F-15 and F-16 spare engines.
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $677.4
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $677.4 million, full funding of the
request, for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $4.7
billion for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $4.8 billion, an increase of $132.0
million, for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Missile Procurement, Air Force program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Other Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $16.6
billion for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $16.5 billion, a decrease of $64.0
million, for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Other Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division
D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Air Force explosive ordnance disposal unmanned systems repairs and
upgrades
The committee notes that over the past 10 years, the
Department of the Air Force has invested in hundreds of
unmanned systems to support critical explosive ordnance
disposal (EOD) missions. The committee also notes that many of
these systems are in need of repair and upgrade after being
used extensively in deployed environments. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to
establish a formal acquisition program for fiscal year 2016 to
properly facilitate and manage the repair, maintenance, and
upgrade of the Department of the Air Force's EOD unmanned
systems.
Aircraft tug vehicles
The committee supports the Air Force's goal to develop
advanced power and energy technologies that promote energy
efficiency and allow the force to meet mission objectives. To
this end, the committee supports further study of the battery
powered towbarless tow vehicles. The committee is aware that in
a preliminary Air Force study, a battery powered towbarless tow
vehicle demonstrated an ability to complete the same task as
current aircraft tow vehicles using less energy while saving
money and creating a safer work environment. The committee
believes that if further studies confirm initial assessments of
this capability, the Air Force should explore replacing
additional existing aircraft tow vehicles with the new electric
towbarless alternatives.
Beyond line of sight command and control for intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance systems
The committee is encouraged by the advances in distribution
of full motion video and the bridging of disparate radio wave
forms for enhanced interoperability as part of the Joint Aerial
Layered Network. The committee recognizes that the fielding of
beyond line of sight command and control and associated
tactical pods in support of intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance will provide valuable capabilities in response
to stated urgent combatant commander requirements.
Yet, the committee is concerned that a joint capability,
called Tactical Airborne Communications Pod (TACPod) was
developed using Air Force Quick Reaction Capability funding and
processes, but is not being used across the military services.
Rather than deploying the capability to meet combatant
commander validated requirements, TACPod is instead being
stored indefinitely. Separately, the committee is concerned
that the Air Force is procuring an entirely different
capability to meet essentially the same requirements that
TACPod was originally developed to fulfill.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy and the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, to provide a briefing to the committee by November
1, 2014, on the existing and planned activities in support of
beyond line of sight command and control for intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance systems.
Emergency Airfield Lighting System
The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force
awarded a small-business set-aside contract to develop the
Emergency Airfield Light System II (EALS II), but subsequently
canceled the program after a successful 2013 operational
utility evaluation where only minor deficiencies were found.
The committee believes that the capability of the EALS II will
be a lasting requirement and is concerned that the costs
associated with a new development effort for a system with
comparable requirements to EALS II may have significant
schedule and cost risks. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than July 30, 2014, on
the decision not to proceed with EALS II production. The
briefing should include the Air Force's current plan to meet
requirements for emergency airfield lighting and the projected
funding required through fiscal year 2019.
Joint threat emitter procurement
The budget request contained $26.6 million in other
procurement, Air Force, for combat training range equipment. Of
this amount, $13.5 million was requested for procurement of one
joint threat emitter (JTE).
The committee is aware of the importance of maintaining the
proficiency of combat aircrews and their capability to respond
to, survive and defeat the most advanced enemy air defenses
they could encounter on any current battlefield. The committee
is also aware that the JTE is intended to provide realistic
electronic warfare training that can simulate the multiple
threat scenarios of a hostile integrated air defense system. In
addition, while older emitters are employed at numerous
training ranges, the committee notes that they mostly simulate
antiquated Soviet air defense systems designed during the Cold
War. The committee believes that these older legacy emitters
may not be adequate to train aircrews expected to challenge the
most sophisticated enemy systems, such as the SA-20, SA-23 or
HQ-9 surface-to-air missile systems. Given the importance of
the JTE, the committee is concerned that the Air Force Budget
request only includes funding to procure one JTE in fiscal year
2015. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to evaluate options for potentially accelerating the
production and fielding of JTE units and brief the committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the program by January 31, 2015.
The committee recommends $26.6 million, the full amount
requested, for combat training range equipment.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $4.2
billion for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends
authorization of $4.4 billion, an increase of $172.1 million,
for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and U.S.-based coproduction
The budget request contained $176.0 million in PE 28866C
for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system.
The committee has supported the Iron Dome Weapons System
since the State of Israel's first request for U.S. funding in
fiscal year 2011. Since the first authorization of Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) funding, U.S. taxpayers have provided
$720.0 million for the program. The committee is aware that the
Israeli requirement may necessitate up to $175.0 million in
addition to the $176.0 million contained in the President's
request.
The committee has received ``The Agreement Between the
Department of Defense of the United States of America and the
Ministry of Defense of the State of Israel Concerning Iron Dome
Defense System Procurement,'' signed on March 5, 2014. The
committee is pleased that this agreement resolves many details
of U.S. coproduction of Iron Dome components and interceptors
in the United States. The committee is aware that MDA and the
Israeli Missile Defense Organization (IMDO) have entered into
an international agreement to govern how the United States
funds up to $680 million between fiscal years 2012-15 for Iron
Dome. The committee is concerned that the agreement does not
cover the full amount it recommends for fiscal year 2015. Given
the significant U.S. taxpayer investment in this system, the
committee believes that coproduction of parts and components
should be done in a manner that will maximize U.S. industry
participation in interceptor and battery deliveries for
Israel's defense needs. The committee recommends $351.0
million, an increase of $175.0 million, in PE 28866C for the
Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system.
However, the committee expects that the Director, Missile
Defense Agency will not obligate or expend $175.0 million of
that amount, and instead hold it in reserve and disburse it
incrementally until receipt and acceptance by the MDA of
sufficiently detailed cost and schedule justification from the
Government of Israel. Such detailed cost and schedule
justification must include:
(1) A timeline for Iron Dome expenditure of funds above the
President's request for the fiscal year for which the funds
were appropriated or made available;
(2) Copies of signed and ratified contracts, subcontracts,
and teaming arrangements between Israeli and U.S. industry for
all Iron Dome coproduction efforts;
(3) Delivery to MDA of all technical data packages as
accepted by U.S. industry suppliers for coproduction; and
(4) A common cost model of Iron Dome components, to be
jointly developed and agreed upon by MDA and IMDO that
includes: recurring and non-recurring engineering costs;
estimates for future buys and actual costs beginning with
fiscal year 2013; the required quantities for all components
through fiscal year 2019; and component lead-times and delivery
schedules.
Additionally, the committee expects the Director, Missile
Defense Agency will ensure that: Iron Dome operational data has
been provided per previous commitments; this additional funding
be applied to the work share percentage for fiscal year 2015
funding between U.S. and Israeli industry as proscribed under
the recently signed Iron Dome Procurement Agreement; and that
the additional funds are required to meet Israeli defense
needs. Any funds found to be in excess of Israel's justified
and documented needs during fiscal year 2015 may be transferred
by the MDA to appropriations available for the procurement of
weapons and equipment according to priority needs.
The committee also believes that if there is a request for
Iron Dome funding for fiscal year 2016, the Director, Missile
Defense must establish for the committee how those funds will
resolve details and agreements needed for U.S.-based
coproduction of all-up-rounds and cover the export of Iron Dome
technology to U.S. and Israeli allies, including coproduction
of parts, components, and all-up-rounds of those exports.
The committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency,
in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees not later than October 1,
2014, on the information provided in the required detailed cost
and schedule justification, including the views of the Director
and the Under Secretary on its sufficiency.
Further, the committee directs the Director, Missile
Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the congressional
defense committees not less than once each quarter in fiscal
year 2015, starting October 1, 2014, on the progress in
achieving the requirements established in ``The Agreement
Between the Department of Defense of the United States of
America and the Ministry of Defense of the State of Israel
Concerning Iron Dome Defense System Procurement.''
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for procurement
at the levels identified in section 4101 of division D of this
Act.
Subtitle B--Army Programs
Section 111--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Airborne
Reconnaissance Low Aircraft
This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of
funds for the communications intelligence subsystem of the
airborne reconnaissance low program until the Secretary of the
Army submits a report to the congressional defense committees
on the plan to integrate such subsystem into the signals
intelligence modernization plan of the Army.
Section 112--Plan on Modernization of UH-60A Aircraft of Army National
Guard
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
submit a plan to the congressional defense committees on the
Army's strategy to modernize the National Guard's fleet of UH-
60A Black Hawk helicopters.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Section 121--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Tomahawk Block IV
Missiles
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a multiyear contract for up to 5 years beginning in
fiscal year 2015, pending submission to Congress of the
certification requirements of section 2306b, title 10, United
States Code, not later than 45 days prior to entering into the
multiyear procurement contract.
Section 122--Construction of San Antonio Class Amphibious Ship
This section would provide the Secretary of the Navy
incremental funding authority to enter into a contract for the
ship construction of a San Antonio class amphibious ship.
Section 123--Additional Oversight Requirements for the Undersea
Mobility Acquisition Program of the United States Special Operations
Command
This section would modify the current oversight
requirements for the undersea mobility acquisition program of
U.S. Special Operations Command, and require the Secretary of
the Navy to review a transition plan for the undersea mobility
capabilities developed by the Commander, U.S. Special
Operations Command. This section would also repeal section 144
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81).
Section 124--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Moored Training
Ship Program
This section would limit the obligation to no more than 80
percent of the fiscal year 2015 shipbuilding and conversion,
Navy funding for the Moored Training Ship program until certain
certifications and reviews regarding requirements and cost
growth are provided to the congressional defense committees.
Section 125--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Mission Modules
for Littoral Combat Ship
This section would limit fiscal year 2015 funds for the
procurement of additional mission modules for the Littoral
Combat Ship program until the Secretary of the Navy submits
milestone B program goals for cost, schedule, and performance
for each mission module increment, and certification by the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation that sufficient
mission modules are available to perform all necessary
operational testing.
Section 126--Extension of Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Littoral Combat Ship
This section would amend section 124 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) and extend the funds limitation to include funds authorized
to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise available for
fiscal year 2015. This section would therefore prohibit the
expenditure of funds associated with Littoral Combat Ship 25
and 26 until the Secretary of the Navy submits a report of the
Littoral Combat Ship program that was requested in section 124
of Public Law 113-66.
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
Section 131--Prohibition on Cancellation or Modification of Avionics
Modernization Program for C-130 Aircraft
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force
from modifying or canceling the C-130 Avionics Modernization
Program in fiscal year 2015 and would also prohibit the
Secretary from beginning an alternative C-130H modernization
program (except for developing and installing an Automatic
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast system modification for the C-
130H). The committee is concerned that any alternative
modernization program the Air Force would pursue would offer
less capability than the program of record.
This section would also limit the funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal
year 2015 for operation and maintenance of the Office of the
Secretary of the Air Force to not more than 75 percent until a
period of 15 days has elapsed following the date on which the
Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees
that the Secretary has obligated the funds authorized to the
appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal years prior
to fiscal year 2015 for the avionics modernization program of
record for C-130 aircraft.
Section 132--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Retirement of A-
10 Aircraft
This section would prohibit funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal
year 2015 for the Department of Defense to be obligated or
expended to retire A-10 aircraft. This section would also
require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct
a study evaluating the platforms of the Air Force used, as of
the date of the study, to conduct close air support missions,
and submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, which would include the cost per airframe carrying out the
close air support missions, the capabilities of each platform
evaluated under such study, and a determination by the
Comptroller General with respect to whether such airframes
other than A-10 aircraft are able to successfully carry out
such close air support missions.
Section 133--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Retirement of U-2
Aircraft
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise
made available for fiscal year 2015 to make significant changes
to retire, prepare to retire, or place U-2 aircraft in storage.
Section 134--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Divestment or
Transfer of KC-10 Aircraft
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force
from using any funds or taking any action during fiscal year
2015 to divest or transfer, or prepare to divest or transfer,
any KC-10 aerial refueling aircraft of the Air Force.
Section 135--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Divestment of E-3
Airborne Warning and Control System Aircraft
This section would limit funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal
year 2015 for the Department of Defense to be obligated or
expended to divest more than four E-3 airborne warning and
control system aircraft, or disestablish any units of the
active or reserve components associated with such aircraft,
until a period of 15 days has elapsed following the date on
which the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the
congressional defense committees a report consisting of a
certification that the Secretary is able to meet all priority
requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands
relating to such aircraft with a planned force of 24 such
aircraft and a detailed explanation how the Secretary will meet
such requirements with such planned force.
Subtitle E--Defense-wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters
Section 141--Comptroller General Report on F-35 Aircraft Acquisition
Program
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to review the F-35 acquisition program, and to
submit a report not later than April 15, 2015, and each year
thereafter until the F-35 acquisition program enters full rate
production. Each report would include the extent to which the
F-35 aircraft acquisition program is meeting cost, schedule and
performance goals; the progress and results of developmental
and operational testing; the progress of the procurement and
manufacturing of the F-35 aircraft; and an assessment of any
plans or efforts of the Secretary of Defense to improve the
efficiency of the procurement and manufacturing of the F-35
aircraft.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $63.5 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation. This represents a $600.0
million increase over the amount authorized for fiscal year
2015.
The committee recommends $63.8 billion, an increase of
$257.5 million to the budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
research, development, test, and evaluation program are
identified in division D of this Act.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $6.6 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Army. The committee
recommends $6.6 billion, a decrease of $13.9 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
research, development, test, and evaluation, Army program are
identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Active protective system
The budget request contained $53.7 million in PE 63005A for
combat vehicle and automotive advance technology, which
includes funding for Active Protection System (APS) research
and development.
The committee is encouraged that funding for APS research
and development was included in the fiscal year 2015 budget
request. In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014, the committee noted that a lack of investment could
soon create a critical capability gap for Army combat vehicles
due to the rapid proliferation of advanced anti-tank guided
missiles and next-generation rocket propelled grenades. The
committee notes that there are numerous types of APS available,
including some that have already been fielded on operational
vehicles in other countries and have performed well in recent
demonstrations. It is crucial the Army keeps momentum going in
this important effort; therefore, the committee encourages the
Army to establish a program of record to develop, procure and
equip required combat vehicles with APS as soon as feasible
based on availability of funding.
The committee recommends $53.7 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 63005A for combat vehicle and automotive
advance technology.
Applied Communication Information Network
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
been conducting research on a suite of capabilities that
provides real time information on vessels of interest in a
riverine environment. The objective of this research, which is
part of the Applied Communication Information Network (ACIN),
is to integrate Government off-the-Shelf, Commercial off-the-
Shelf and emerging technologies to provide integrated command,
control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities in a scalable, low-
risk, cost-effective and user-friendly system. The committee
recognizes the need for a laboratory and test-bed capabilities
with proven management and systems administration to support
such efforts. The committee is aware that ACIN has demonstrated
expertise in this area with a track record of transitioning its
research into operational use. The committee encourages
continued support for the ACIN to advance fielding of critical
C4ISR technologies to military users in the riverine
environment.
Combat feeding research and development
The budget request contained $10.9 million across several
Army program elements for research and development of combat
feeding technologies.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense Combat
Feeding Research and Engineering Program (CFREP) is the only
program within the Department of Defense that engages in
research and development, to include high-risk, high payoff
science and technology, for combat rations, field food service
equipment and combat feeding systems to support the Army, Navy,
Marine Corps, Air Force, Defense Logistics Agency, and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The committee is aware the budget request for fiscal year
2015 reflects a significant reduction when compared to
projections for fiscal year 2015 in last year's budget request.
The committee is concerned that the proposed reductions could
have a disproportionate impact on CFREP's ability to perform
its mission. The committee understands the reduced funding
level may decrease CFREP's ability to support requirements of
future operating environments; develop innovative products that
improve warfighter physical and cognitive performance; supply
the military services with world-class products leading to an
increasing dependence on industry that has no incentive to
innovate due to lack of a market; contribute to reducing cost
to the services over the long-term due to increasingly
inefficient supply chains and reliance on commercial solutions.
In developing its fiscal year 2016 budget, the committee
encourages the Secretary of the Army to increase funding for
combat feeding technology projects.
The committee recommends $16.3 million, an increase of $5.4
million, for Army combat feeding research and development.
Combat identification for dismounted users
The committee recognizes the importance of developing and
deploying combat identification systems for dismounted users
that utilize both radio frequency and infrared laser
technologies to provide an all-weather, day-night, high-
reliability individual kit to address specific anti-fratricide
factors in dismounted operations. The committee is concerned
that ``friendly fire'' incidents continue to be a source of
casualties between U.S. forces, as well as partners and allies,
due to the lack of such capabilities. The committee believes
such capabilities exist and have been successfully
demonstrated, and encourages the Department of Defense to
proceed with further testing and evaluation to determine if
these capabilities can be more widely fielded.
Dual mode tactical missiles
The committee continues to recommend that the Department of
Defense pursue an all-weather, moving target-capable tactical
missile that could be integrated on different military
platforms. While the committee understands that certain
capabilities, such as a single mode seeker missile, are
appropriate when prosecuting certain targets, the committee is
concerned that current capabilities may have difficulties
defeating other targets in a cost-efficient and precise manner,
while also ensuring low collateral damage.
The committee is particularly interested in capabilities to
counter high-speed, erratically maneuvering targets on land and
at sea, as well as understanding how dual mode missiles could
be used in counterterrorism (CT) operations. The committee
notes the use of dual mode missiles, to include allied missile
programs, could potentially close existing operational gaps,
reduce the risk of collateral damage, and may result in cost
savings relative to current Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures
used as part of current direct action CT operations. The
committee is aware of the recent integration and successful
testing of a fully operational dual mode missile off an MQ-9
Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle system for the United Kingdom
Ministry of Defense. The committee notes the Royal Air Force
has used this dual mode missile extensively in overseas
contingency operations and have reported positive feedback.
Further, the committee is also aware that the Secretary of the
Navy is funding an initial analysis of dual mode missile
integration on the F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft, and that
initial feedback has been positive.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
February 15, 2015, on the capabilities of existing U.S. and
allied missile programs which utilize dual mode seeker
technology. The briefing should also include an assessment of
the applicability of current dual-mode missiles within the
Nation's counterterrorism efforts, including against high-
speed, rapidly moving targets on land and sea, as well as an
update of U.S. and allied efforts to integrate dual-mode
missile technologies onto the MQ-9 Reaper weapon system.
Electronic Warfare Advanced Technology
The committee is aware that the budget request for
research, development test, and evaluation, Army included PE
63008A, ``Electronic Warfare Advanced Technology.'' According
to the budget justification documents, this program element
``matures and demonstrates software, algorithms and services
that focus on tactical cyber situational awareness, autonomous
network defense, cross domain security and encryption
solutions.'' The committee believes that the title for this
program element is misleading and does not adequately describe
or justify the way these funds are used. The committee urges
the Army to appropriately title this program element in future
budget submissions to properly identify the scope of work being
conducted.
Expeditionary communications
The committee understands that expeditionary missions, such
as non-combatant evacuation operations or humanitarian
assistance, present unique communication challenges as they can
often take place in austere environments where little or no
communications infrastructure remains intact. Moreover, the
U.S. military often has a distinct requirement to communicate
with other elements of the U.S. Government, non-governmental
organizations, and host nation officials, and this must be
facilitated with sufficient capability to do so effectively and
securely. As the Department of Defense works to improve its
expeditionary communications infrastructure, the committee
urges the Department to explore the availability of secure,
commercial cellular wireless networks that have been
successfully deployed by the Department in tactical theaters of
operation.
Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment
The committee notes that in the committee report (H. Rept.
113-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee directed the Secretary of
the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by February 15, 2014, evaluating the potential
utility of fabric-based solutions to address soldier and
civilian personnel exposure to inhaled hazards, including sand,
dust, smoke, and pollutants, such as diesel exhaust and lead.
The committee is concerned that the Secretary of the Army has
failed to deliver this report to the congressional defense
committees. Further, the committee understands that no
substantive evaluation of potential protective technologies has
taken place. The committee has been informed by the Program
Executive Office-Soldier that the proper entity to evaluate
fabric-based solutions is the U.S. Army Natick Soldier
Research, Development, and Engineering Center (NSRDEC) in
Natick, Massachusetts. The committee understands that NSRDEC
has technical and scientific expertise in the areas of
environmental protection, protective clothing, multi-functional
textiles, materials, and fibers.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than December 1, 2014, containing NSRDEC's evaluation of
the capabilities of known fabric-based solutions to mitigate
soldier exposure to the inhalation of sand, dust, smoke, and
pollutants.
High explosive guided mortar program
The budget request contained no funding for the High
Explosive Guided Mortar (HEGM) program. The budget request
contained no funding for the XM395 Accelerated Precision Mortar
Initiative (APMI).
The APMI round is a precision guided 120mm mortar munition
that was procured to address an operational need from forces in
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). The committee notes the Army
procured 5,480 APMI rounds to address the operational need, and
that to date, approximately 2,328 have been fielded in OEF, and
the remaining are part of the war reserve inventory. The
committee notes the Army has chosen not to transition this
program to an official program of record, and that the Army
does not anticipate a requirement to procure additional APMI
rounds. The committee understands that based on positive
feedback from OEF on APMI performance, the Army is moving
forward with the HEGM program and anticipates starting the
program in fiscal year 2016, with fielding beginning around
2022. Based on information provided by the Army, the committee
understands HEGM would provide for increased capabilities over
those demonstrated by APMI.
Given the continued constrained budget environment, the
committee expects the military services to maximize research
and development funding, reduce procurement costs, and when
possible develop joint requirements, instead of resourcing
duplicative, stand-alone programs. The committee would expect
the Army to conduct a comprehensive analysis of alternatives
that would include the APMI and Marine Corps precision extended
range munition program before initiating a next generation
precision guided mortar program.
High Performance Computing Modernization program
The committee is aware that the Army Corps of Engineers
serves as executive agent for the Department of Defense High
Performance Computing Modernization (HPCM) program, a
responsibility that devolved from the Office of the Secretary
of Defense in fiscal year 2012. The purpose of this program is
to apply supercomputing resources to solve Department of
Defense problems in research, development, test, and
evaluation, and acquisition engineering. To meet this mission,
the HPCM program must maintain state-of-the-art supercomputing
resource centers, as well as software engineering talent to
maintain modern and secure software applications for the user
community.
The committee is also aware that the HPCM program has been
operating at a level not currently supported by the level of
funding requested in the President's request. The committee is
concerned that the shortfall has only been mitigated by the
repeated intervention of Congress to get the program to a
sustainable level. The committee believes that the Department
should conduct a thorough assessment of the program to ensure
future budget requests are sufficient to right-size the budget
to the needed infrastructure and support capabilities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army,
in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering, to review the HPCM program, and to
submit a report on the findings to the congressional defense
committees not later than September 30, 2014. The review should
examine the following:
(1) Identify the capabilities that will be lost and the
impact on Department if the HPCMP is funded at the budget
request for fiscal year 2015 level throughout the Future Years
Defense Program (FYDP);
(2) Identify the resources reduced, including manpower, in
order to operate at the budget request for fiscal year 2015
level throughout the FYDP; and
(3) A strategy for closing the gap between the budget
requests and the fiscal year 2012 HPCMP funding level
throughout the FYDP.
Improved Turbine Engine Program
The committee continues to support the budget request for
the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP). ITEP is a
competitive acquisition that is based on current research
efforts and is designed to develop a more fuel efficient and
powerful engine for the current Black Hawk and Apache
helicopter fleets. The committee notes the benefits of improved
fuel efficiencies through lower, specific fuel consumption that
ITEP brings to the battlefield. In addition, the committee
encourages the Army to consider maintenance and sustainment
costs for ITEP and specifically, how these calculations would
drive affordability of the program.
The committee believes it is important that ITEP transition
from Science and Technology to the Preliminary Design phase of
Engineering and Manufacturing Development as soon as possible.
Providing adequate funding for ITEP to maintain or accelerate
the schedule will reduce risk and ensure continued program
advancement and success. The committee encourages the Army to
maintain its schedule to control development and program costs,
mitigate technical risk, validate performance, and ensure the
warfighter receives the best possible solution.
The committee, however, believes that the ITEP Business
Case Analysis and Cost Estimate may be outdated and is
concerned that it might not sufficiently factor in the total
fuel savings or maintenance and logistics cost savings
associated with the engine. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Army to brief the House Committee on Armed
Services by December 1, 2014, on a path to update the study.
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile program
The budget request contained $83.8 million in PE 65450A for
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) research and development.
The committee continues to support the JAGM program based
on the need for a replacement to the Hellfire missile program
that provides an all-weather, long-range moving target
capability. In addition, the continuation of the JAGM program
would help sustain the tactical missile industrial base.
Tactical missile technology remains an area of asymmetric
advantage and technological superiority for the United States
that the committee believes must be retained.
The committee has received the briefing as required in the
committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The committee
notes the Army continues to pursue a ``dual mode'' seeker as
part of Increment 1 of the new acquisition strategy, with a
milestone B decision planned in fiscal year 2015. From this
briefing, the committee also understands the JAGM program
completed a successful Critical Design Review in January 2014,
and the program remains on cost, schedule and performance. The
committee notes there will be a full and open competition for
the engineering and manufacturing development contract award.
The committee acknowledges that Army funding is constrained by
the current budget environment, however, given current
technology readiness levels as demonstrated during the
technology development phase, the committee encourages
acceleration of the Increment I program.
The committee recommends $83.8 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 65450A for continued JAGM research and
development.
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
The budget request contained $45.7 million in PE 65812A,
and $11.5 million in PE 65812M to complete the engineering and
manufacturing development phase of the Joint Light Tactical
Vehicle (JLTV) program. The budget request also contained
$164.6 million in Other Procurement, Army, and $7.5 million in
Procurement, Marine Corps for the procurement of 183 low-rate
initial production JLTVs.
The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) will complement the
current fleet of Up-Armor high mobility, multi-purpose wheeled
vehicles and would provide improved protection, payload, and
performance to the Army's and the Marine Corps' light tactical
wheeled vehicle fleets.
The committee notes the budget request would mark the first
year of procurement for JLTV, and would also complete limited
user testing. The committee supports the JLTV program and
recognizes that the program remains on schedule despite the
impacts resulting from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public
Law 112-25), and understands a milestone C decision is
scheduled for June 2015. The committee notes that JLTV does not
have any significant technology issues that would preclude
development. Therefore, the committee expects the program to
remain on schedule. The committee notes the JLTV program is the
only new tactical wheeled vehicle modernization program for the
foreseeable future, and the committee believes the JLTV program
will be critical for maintaining the viability of the
industrial base.
The committee recommends $45.7 million in PE 65812A, $11.5
million in PE 65812M, and elsewhere in this report, $164.6
million in Other Procurement, Army, and $7.5 million in
Procurement, Marine Corps, the full amount of the total
request, for the JLTV program.
Lightweight segmented tactical ladders
The committee acknowledges that improved mobility of the
soldier increases safety and improves mission capability. The
committee is aware that the tactical ladder is an important
piece of equipment that is critical to many missions throughout
the world. The committee understands that current tactical
ladder systems are made from metal or fiberglass, weigh 40
pounds or more, and are often cumbersome to transport,
especially on foot. The committee is also aware there may be
commercially available, lightweight carbon fiber composite
ladders that reduce ladder weight load to 11 pounds or less,
while maintaining the strength and durability of heavier
ladders. The committee also notes that current telescoping and
foldout tactical ladders require a single soldier to carry the
entire load, whereas a segmented ladder provides the option for
weight distribution among members of a group to improve
portability.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than December 31, 2014, on the potential benefits of
lightweight segmented tactical ladders. The briefing should
include an overview of the current military inventory and a
review of available carbon fiber commercial ladder options that
may reduce weight and provide additional flexibility to
soldiers.
Non-invasive medical diagnostic tools
The committee recognizes the value in developing high-
fidelity medical instruments to provide diagnostic analysis
through non-invasive means. The committee believes that such
tools lend themselves to use in austere environments like
combat zones, natural and civil disasters, and settings where
rapid and accurate diagnostic data must be obtained in an
unsettled, often chaotic, environment where standard clinical
support may be lacking. The committee encourages the Department
of Defense to explore development of such non-invasive medical
diagnostic tools for use in austere and highly unstable
environments.
Operational testing of High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator
The committee believes that the High Energy Laser Mobile
Demonstrator (HEL-MD) is of great value to the Army and to the
Department of Defense's efforts to develop directed energy
weapons. The committee is concerned that the Army does not have
a clear plan for the future of the HEL-MD. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a
briefing on the plan for the future of the HEL-MD to the House
Armed Services Committee by December 1, 2014. This plan shall
include an analysis on the feasibility of operational testing
of the HEL-MD, including the possibility of operational testing
of the HEL-MD in international locations such as Israel.
Rotorcraft hostile fire protection
The committee is encouraged by the continued effort of the
Army and other military services to develop a hostile fire
detection and defeat system that will function in the harsh
environments produced by rotorcraft operations. In the past,
hostile fire detection systems for rotorcraft have been limited
to acoustic-based technologies even though rotor noise, wind
noise and echoing off of topography restricts the system's
accuracy. The committee wants to ensure that the Army is
considering advanced technologies, like radar, that will
pinpoint and integrate the location of hostile fire into the
aircraft's defeat systems for engagement of incoming
projectiles. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by February 9, 2015, that details the Army's efforts
to potentially implement a radar, ultraviolet and infrared
based hostile fire detection and defeat system into existing
rotorcraft platforms.
Small Airborne Networking Radio program
The budget request contained no funding for the Small
Airborne Networking Radio (SANR).
The committee is aware that the Army has deferred the SANR
program indefinitely while moving forward with the less
ambitious Small Airborne Link-16 Terminal. The committee is
concerned regarding the lack of information from the Army on
the future of the SANR program and believes that full
integration of the soldier radio waveform, originally intended
to be provided by the SANR program, into Army airborne
platforms will be essential in the future.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than December 1, 2014, with an update on the status
of the SANR program.
Soldier protection system and weight reduction for personnel protection
equipment
The budget request contained $27.8 million in PE 64601A for
Infantry Support Weapons. Of this amount, $7.5 million supports
the continued development of the Army's Soldier Protection
System (SPS). Elsewhere in this report, the committee notes
that the budget request contained $63.1 million in Operations
and Maintenance, Army for the initial procurement of SPS
components.
The SPS provides a lighter weight modular, scalable
integrated system of mission tailorable personnel protection
equipment (PPE) while also improving the level of mobility,
form, fit, and function for both male and female soldiers. The
committee is aware the SPS includes subsystems such as
protection for the head, eyes, extremities, torso, and other
integrated sensor packages. The committee notes a milestone C
decision is expected in fiscal year 2015. The committee notes
the Army would field two to three brigade combat team sets per
year and has programmed approximately $575.0 million for SPS
across the Future Years Defense Program. While the committee
commends the Army on their SPS effort, the committee encourages
the Army to provide enough funding to maintain two vendors for
competitive purposes, and also encourages the accelerated
fielding of SPS to all soldiers.
The committee has long championed the importance of
reducing the weight of current body armor and personnel
protection equipment systems, as well as stressing the critical
need for robust investment in weight reduction initiatives,
along with technology insertions to improve performance and
survivability. The committee believes current body armor
systems provide outstanding protection to the warfighter, but
their weight contributes to the over-burden issue and decline
in performance. The committee understands that body armor
system weights have remained relatively constant over the last
decade in spite of advances in materials technologies because
protection levels have also increased in response to threats.
The committee commends the Army for addressing this
challenge by shifting from a more discrete component level
development strategy to a more systems engineering and system
level approach to body armor and PPE development as a means to
improve soldier capabilities. The committee believes the
Department must maintain significant investment in near-term
solutions that can effectively reduce the weight of body armor,
while also investing in the development of revolutionary new
material technologies that could provide for significant
breakthroughs in weight and performance.
The committee recommends $7.5 million in PE 64601A for SPS,
and elsewhere in this report recommends $63.1 million for the
procurement and fielding of SPS, the full amount of the budget
request.
Stryker Vehicle Survivability Upgrades
The committee supports efforts to increase the protection
level of Army Stryker vehicles and believes there is a need for
additional innovation and competition within the program. In
particular, the committee continues to support the ongoing
Program Executive Officer, Ground Combat Systems, Stryker
Vehicle Survivability Systems Integration Study program. The
committee notes that this program has performed several
integration studies reviewing the potential for incorporating
occupant-centric survivability technologies onto Stryker
vehicles. In addition, the committee understands that these
kit-based solutions may potentially be installed during depot
reset or in the field, and could enhance Stryker survivability
and mobility across the fleet. The committee also notes that
there are two variants of the Stryker vehicle, the Mobile Gun
System (MGS) and the NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV), that
do not have the same level of protection as ``Double V''
equipped variants and that may immediately benefit from Stryker
upgrades explored as part of the study program. The committee
encourages the Army to test and evaluate these technologies on
the Stryker platform, with emphasis on the MGS and NBCRV
variants that currently lack the same protection levels as
other Stryker vehicles. The committee directs the Secretary of
the Army to brief the committee by December 15, 2014 describing
the technologies identified within the Stryker Vehicle
Survivability Systems Integration Study program, as well as the
outcomes of any testing of these technologies on the Stryker
platform.
Transparent armor technology development
The budget request contained $110.0 million in PE 63005A
for Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology. Of this
amount, $53.7 million was requested for combat vehicle
survivability research and development to include transparent
armor technology.
This program element matures, integrates and demonstrates
combat and tactical vehicle automotive technologies that enable
a lighter, more mobile and more survivable force. The combat
vehicle survivability project matures and demonstrates
protection and survivability technologies such as active
protection systems, advanced vehicle armors, blast mitigation
and safety devices to address both traditional and asymmetric
threats to ground vehicles. The committee believes this project
should also consider emerging technologies in the fields of
glass, polymers, and coatings to field more resilient and
lightweight transparent armor.
The committee notes that improved transparent armor
materials are required for improved durability and
survivability of combat and tactical vehicles, as well as
potentially reducing overall life-cycle and repair costs. The
committee encourages the Tank Automotive Research Development
and Engineering Center to engage in cooperative agreements with
industry and academia in order to further the development of
transparent armor material technology.
The committee recommends $110.0 million, the full amount of
the request, in PE 63005A for combat vehicle and automotive
advanced technology.
UH-72 Helicopter health monitoring system
The committee is aware that the UH-72 Light Utility
Helicopter (LUH) is not currently equipped with a health
monitoring system. However, the committee has been informed
that the commercial variant of the UH-72, the EC-145, is
currently being outfitted with a Next Generation Health
Monitoring System (NGHMS).
The committee understands that a NGHMS could provide total
aircraft monitoring and diagnostics of mechanical and
electrical systems within a lightweight distributed
architecture consisting of miniature sensors that contain
processing and analysis functions operating with non-
proprietary data protocols in a secure cloud management
infrastructure. NGHMS maintenance intelligence could provide
early warning for failing systems that may reduce costly
emergency maintenance, improving UH-72 maintenance schedules
and fleet readiness.
Therefore, the committee encourages Army Program Executive
Officer Aviation and Program Manager Utility Helicopter, to
engage in a demonstration of NGHMS on the UH-72. In addition,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees by February 15,
2015, that describes the potential for integrating and
demonstrating NGHMS on the UH-72 platform. However, the
committee expects that if the Army makes the decision to
proceed with a program of record that it will be done using
full and open competition in accordance with Federal
Acquisition Regulations.
Universal tactical controller for unmanned systems
The budget request contained no funding for a universal
tactical controller for unmanned systems.
The committee is aware that there is not presently a
documented roadmap for acquiring a universal tactical
controller for unmanned air and ground assets because there is
neither a validated requirement, nor specific funding
programmed. However, in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013, the committee directed the Secretary of the Army, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Navy, to conduct an
advisability and feasibility study for developing a universal
controller for Class I unmanned aerial systems and unmanned
ground systems.
As a result of this report, the committee recognizes the
Army and the Marine Corps have collaborated to experiment with
the feasibility of a universal tactical robotic controller for
unmanned air and ground systems at the battalion and below
echelons, with the results being viewed favorably. The
committee notes that a draft Army Capabilities Development
Document (CDD) for the Common Robotic System-Individual (CRS-I)
has been generated which includes the capability for a common
tactical controller that can control both air and ground
assets. The committee understands that once the CRS-I CDD is
validated, funding is programmed, and the program is initiated,
acquisition of such a controller would likely be achieved
through full and open competition and fielded as part of the
CRS-I program.
Given these findings and the military services' growing
reliance on unmanned systems for a variety of missions, the
committee encourages the Army and the Marine Corps to
accelerate the development of a universal common tactical
controller, to generate an acquisition roadmap, and to program
funding for this initiative in the fiscal year 2016 Future
Years Defense Program.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $16.3 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Navy. The committee
recommends $16.2 billion, a decrease of $82.5 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy are
identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Amphibious Combat Vehicle increment 1.1 program
The budget request contained $105.7 million in PE 63611M
for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program.
The committee understands that the Marine Corps has
significantly changed its acquisition strategy for the ACV
program and will now use an incremental approach to developing,
procuring, and fielding a next generation family of amphibious
combat vehicles. The committee notes that in the near term, the
Marine Corps is planning to use the first vehicle increment,
ACV increment 1.1, as an armored personnel carrier that would
deliver marines from ship-to-shore by means of a connector
craft, and be used for inland missions. The committee
recognizes this would address an immediate near-term, urgent
capability gap for improved tactical mobility and survivability
for deployed Marine infantry units.
The committee notes that while the proposed schedule for
ACV increment 1.1 is aggressive, the committee expects the
Marine Corps to benefit from lessons learned from previous next
generation assault amphibious vehicle programs that suffered
from requirements creep and immature technology readiness
levels that led to significant cost overruns and schedule
delays. The committee understands that results from previous
developmental testing conducted on vehicles participating in
the former Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) vehicle program, to
include limited user demonstrations, have informed the Marine
Corps that the technology for these potential vehicles is
highly mature and is consistent with a stable set of
requirements for this vehicle. Accordingly, the committee
understands that the Marine Corps is recommending a streamlined
procurement and fielding strategy for the ACV increment 1.1
vehicle. The committee supports the intent to streamline the
procurement and fielding of the ACV increment 1.1 vehicle, and
believes this program could potentially serve as an example for
future major defense acquisition program reform. However, the
committee notes that this streamlined approach to ACV increment
1.1 is contingent on mature technology and validated and
stabilized requirements. The committee will continue to closely
monitor this program under the auspices of the committee's
ongoing comprehensive acquisition reform effort.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition), in
coordination with Headquarters Marine Corps, to brief the
committee not later than September 1, 2014, on the
justification used to streamline the ACV increment 1.1 vehicle
program, to include the documented results from the Marine
Requirements Oversight Council and the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council reviews, as well as the documented results
from the Materiel Development Decision. The committee also
directs the Assistant Secretary to brief the committee on any
potential procedural and/or regulatory barriers that may
prevent the Marine Corps from streamlining the ACV increment
1.1 program. Based on information already provided to the
committee by the Marine Corps regarding the streamlined
procurement strategy for the ACV increment 1.1 program, the
committee understands additional funds would also be required
in fiscal year 2015 to support a contract award in fiscal year
2015.
The committee recommends $190.8 million, an increase of
$85.1 million, in PE 63611M for the ACV Increment 1.1 vehicle
program.
Briefing on the Navy Laser Weapon System
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to brief
the House Committee on Armed Services by March 2, 2015, on the
performance of the Navy Laser Weapon System (LaWS) after
deployment aboard the USS Ponce. The committee requests the
following development groups be represented at this brief:
Directed Energy and Electric Weapons, Office of Naval Research;
Naval Surface Warfare Center; Ship Command of the USS Ponce
while testing LaWS; the actual operators of LaWS aboard the USS
Ponce; and any other briefers the Secretary deems appropriate.
This brief shall include: the preparation of the weapon system
for deployment at sea, structural and power accommodations on
the USS Ponce, any special training for the officers and crew,
performance of LaWS from the perspective of the operators,
recommendations for future pre-deployment training, and an
assessment on the feasibility of near-term deployment of a
directed energy ship defense system across the Navy.
Marine Corps Rifle Mounted Optical Systems and Modifications
The committee continues to support the Commandant of the
Marine Corps's ongoing efforts to lighten the combat carrying
load of Marines, as well as efforts to modernize individual
warfighter equipment. The committee understands the Marine
Corps is developing the Family of Optical Systems and
Modifications (FOSAM) in response to a universal urgent need
from deployed Marines. The FOSAM is a suite of multi-functional
weapon optical systems to include various thermal, image
intensifier, magnified optical, laser range-finding,
illuminating, and pointer functionalities that would replace
multiple single-purpose systems. The committee understands the
FOSAM could improve functional capability for the warfighter,
lessen the weight of individual equipment items, reduce the
number of equipment items requiring field maintenance, and
drive down operating costs. The committee encourages the Marine
Corps to execute their current acquisition strategies for FOSAM
and expects any future contracts to be competitively awarded.
MQ-4C Triton program
The budget request contained $498.0 million in PE 35220N
for research and development of the MQ-4C Triton unmanned
aerial system (UAS).
The committee notes that low rate initial production for
the MQ-4C has been delayed one year to fiscal year 2016. The
committee believes that this is a prudent delay that will allow
sufficient development and testing to be completed and to
minimize the risks of concurrent development and production. In
addition, the committee is encouraged that the Department of
the Navy has maintained stable requirements for the MQ-4C
Triton. The Department of Defense's history of rushing complex
systems into production before adequate testing has occurred
and constantly changing requirements has resulted in excessive
cost growth and unnecessary schedule delays. The committee
encourages the Navy to continue with a conservative approach to
the schedule and requirements for the MQ-4C in order to ensure
that the program remains on a realistic path to providing the
Navy with initial operational capability in 2018.
Additionally, the committee is concerned about significant
delays in the research and development funding profile for
development of the multi-intelligence (Multi-INT) signals
intelligence (SIGINT) suite for the Triton aircraft. Sliding
the development of this capability significantly elevates the
risks associated with integrating SIGINT capabilities into the
baseline aircraft ahead of the planned Milestone C event, the
full rate production decision for the Multi-INT capability.
Further, the committee is concerned about the maturity of the
Triton Multi-INT concept of operations and resourcing with
respect to integration of the ground station within the
national and Department of the Navy processing, exploitation
and dissemination enterprise.
Therefore, the committee recommends $530.4 million, an
increase of $32.4 million, for MQ-4C baseline Triton research
and development to return the development schedule of the
Multi-INT Triton sensor suite back to the plan proposed by the
Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2014.
Navy deployment of the laser weapon system
The committee commends the Navy on its recent efforts to
operationally deploy a directed energy laser weapon system. The
Department of Defense has invested significant resources in
directed energy weapon system research and development (R&D)
with limited success at fielding an operational system. The
committee recognizes the challenges posed by these R&D efforts,
and understands the complexity of the issues that still need to
be addressed in order to transition directed energy technology
to viable weapon systems. Recent demonstrations within the
directed energy community, such as the Counter-electronics High
Power Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) by the Air Force and the
High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL-MD) by the Army,
have shown significant progress toward addressing these issues.
The committee notes that the deployment of the Laser Weapon
System (LaWS) by the Navy onboard the USS Ponce, which will
occur late in 2014, was the first deployment of a high energy
laser system on a U.S. vessel in a realistic maritime
environment. The committee congratulates the Navy on the
achievement of this major milestone and looks forward to seeing
the results of this deployment and how it will inform future
decisions related to directed energy weapons.
Navy reimbursable work for other Federal agencies
The committee is aware that the Chief of Naval Operations
recently issued guidance to Navy working capital funded
entities, including the science and technology laboratories and
test and evaluation centers, to cease conducting reimbursable
work for other Federal agencies. The committee is concerned
that such a moratorium ignores how working capital funded
entities operate and the value that outside, reimbursable work
can have on reducing the overall rate structure for entities
like the naval warfare centers. The committee also believes
that such a move could be detrimental to the overall efficiency
of the Federal research and test enterprise by forcing other
Federal partners to rely on contractors to provide these
services, or to build additional, redundant scientific and test
capabilities. For example, the Department of Homeland Security
works very closely with the naval warfare centers to provide
science, technology, test and evaluation capabilities for its
programs, and without that support, the Department of Homeland
Security would have to devote a larger percentage of its
research, development, test, and evaluation budget to providing
those services itself.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy,
in coordination with the Chief of Naval Operations, to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2015, on the rationale for the decision to cease reimbursable
work for Federal agencies outside of the Navy, and an analysis
of the policy impacts of this decision, including the ability
to facilitate interagency work and fully utilize existing
infrastructure. The briefing should also examine the
anticipated effect on Navy working capital fund rates if the
policy is enforced, as well as the impact if the policy is
rescinded. Finally, the briefing should examine the impact on
each naval warfare center, and the role of the warfare center's
commanding officers in making decisions related to reimbursable
work.
Next Generation Land Attack and Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare weapon
development
The budget request contained $32.4 million in PE 24229N for
Tomahawk and Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW)
development. The budget request also contained $194.3 million
in Weapons Procurement, Navy for procurement of 100 Tomahawk
missiles, which is a decrease of 96 missiles from what had been
planned for procurement in the fiscal year 2014 budget request.
The budget request also proposes to terminate Tomahawk Block IV
procurement beginning in fiscal year 2016. In addition, the
budget request contained $203.0 million in PE 64786N for
development of Increment I and Increment II of the Offensive
Anti-Surface Warfare (OASUW) weapon.
The committee is concerned by the Secretary of the Navy's
recommendation to terminate procurement in 2016 of the Nation's
only long-range, surface-launched land-attack cruise missile
production capability prior to finalizing concept development
of NGLAW, which is not planned to be operationally fielded
until 2024 at the earliest. Furthermore, the committee is
concerned that the capability to recertify current inventory
Block IV Tomahawk missiles could be put at risk if the
Secretary of the Navy decides to shutter the Tomahawk Block IV
production line in fiscal year 2016. The committee is also
concerned that the Secretary has not clearly articulated a
medium- to long-range conventional cruise missile requirements
and capabilities strategy or roadmap that explains the bridge
between production of current missiles to the development,
production, and fielding of OASUW and NGLAW. The Secretary has
also not clearly articulated how the missile requirements and
capabilities differ between OASUW and NGLAW in meeting
combatant commander requirements, or the reason that a separate
missile is needed for OASUW and NGLAW in order to meet
offensive surface-attack mission requirements. Further, the
Secretary has not clearly articulated how the inventory stock
of long-range cruise missiles will be replenished if the
current stock of Tomahawk missiles is utilized to fulfill test,
training, and warfighting requirements between 2016-24. The
committee is also concerned that the Navy is well below all
categories of inventory requirements and is discouraged that
the Navy is only using one category of inventory requirements
in stating that there is no risk by terminating Tomahawk Block
IV production in fiscal year 2016.
The recommendation to shutter the Tomahawk Block IV
production line is further compounded by the fact that OASUW
Increment I is just beginning to transition to a program of
record, and OASUW Increment II is still in the concept
definition and refinement phase. The committee supports current
efforts to develop an OASUW Increment I capability to fulfill
the urgent operational need of the Commander, U.S. Pacific
Command, and encourages the Secretary to aggressively pursue
fielding this capability.
Therefore, the committee is skeptical of the Secretary of
the Navy's decision to cease production of Tomahawk Block IV in
2016. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees in
conjunction with the submission of the budget request for
fiscal year 2016, that articulates the following: (1) a 15-year
medium to long-range land attack cruise missile strategy and
roadmap; (2) known or anticipated shortfalls and capability
gaps of current cruise missiles; (3) an explanation of
requirement differences between OASUW and NGLAW missile
capabilities; (4) a transition strategy from current production
land-attack cruise missiles to recertification of current
inventory cruise missiles that discusses anticipated cost,
schedule, and execution risks and issues; and (5) the cost,
schedule, and execution risk associated with replenishment of
current inventory cruise missiles that may be used for test,
training, and operational requirements in order to maintain a
sufficient inventory of cruise missiles until NGLAW is
operationally fielded. The report may contain a classified
annex or any other information that the Secretary desires to
convey to the congressional defense committees.
The committee recommends $32.4 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 24229N for Tomahawk and Next Generation Land
Attack Weapon (NGLAW) development. The committee recommends
$276.3 million, an increase of $82.0 million, in Weapons
Procurement, Navy for procurement of 196 Tomahawk missiles and
to reduce risk to the Tomahawk missile industrial base.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that
would authorize multi-year procurement authority for Tomahawk
Block IV missiles if the Secretary of the Navy determines
during deliberations of the fiscal year 2016 budget request
that it is not prudent to shutter the production line at this
time. The committee would support the Secretary's decision to
procure the maximum amount of additional missiles to fully
satisfy inventory requirements and bridge transition to
Tomahawk Block IV recertification and modernization in the most
cost-effective manner possible, and especially during periods
of constrained fiscal resources. Finally, the committee
recommends $203.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE
64786N for development of Increment I and Increment II of the
Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare weapon.
Oceanographic research
The budget request contained $45.4 million in PE 62435N for
the Ocean Warfighting Environment Applied Research program.
For academic research, the Navy operates and maintains
Auxiliary General Purpose Oceanographic Research (AGOR)
vessels. Three of these vessels require a mid-life overhaul,
partial funding for which was provided in the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6).
The committee notes that funding provided to date does not
fully support all of the items that the Navy has determined are
necessary to fully extend the life of these AGOR ships to 40-45
years.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $65.4 million, an
increase of $20.0 million, in PE 62435N for Ocean Warfighting
Environment Applied Research, to procure the entirety of a mid-
life overhaul. The committee notes that the inclusion of this
authorization of appropriations is predicated on merit-based
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of
section 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, or on
competitive procedures.
The committee continues to believe that oceanographic
research is a core function of the Navy, and remains committed
to ensuring the ability of the Navy to sustain its research
priorities, even in the face of fiscally constrained budgets.
The committee is concerned that the Navy has been decreasing
funding in oceanographic research, especially sea-going
research, and about the negative long-term implications these
trends are likely to have on areas like anti-submarine warfare
and battlespace awareness. The committee believes that the Navy
infrastructure such as the AGOR vessels, deep submergence
facilities such as the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, or
the instrumentation investments made by the Defense University
Research Instrumentation Program are vital components to the
Navy's program. Navy science and technology funding also plays
a key role in information stewardship, including ocean mapping,
oceanographic and meteorological data, that supports Navy,
national and international scientific goals.
Precision extended range munition program
The budget request contained $156.6 million in PE 26623M
for Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems. Of this
amount, $11.6 million was for the 120mm Precision Extended
Range Munition (PERM) program.
The PERM is a GPS-guided, precision munition that consists
of a propelling system, warhead, guidance system, fuze and
container, and will be fired from a 120mm Rifled Towed Mortar.
Section 216 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) required the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to certify to the congressional
defense committees the stand-alone operational need for PERM,
as well as a sufficient business case for PERM, as opposed to
not using existing precision munitions in the war reserve. The
committee notes this certification has not yet been provided,
however, the committee has been informed by the Marine Corps,
as well as the Joint Staff, that a favorable certification is
imminent.
The committee is aware that the PERM program is the only
120mm extended range precision guided mortar program of record.
The committee understands the PERM program is currently on
schedule and a milestone C decision is currently scheduled for
first quarter fiscal year 2015. The committee expects the Army
and Marine Corps to continue to coordinate efforts for next
generation precision guided munition programs.
The committee recommends $11.6 million, full funding of the
request, in PE 26623M for PERM development and low rate initial
production.
Submarine detection research
The committee is concerned about the emerging threat of
submarines that could potentially be deployed by adversaries in
littoral areas of the United States. These platforms are
expected to employ sophisticated quieting technologies to mask
operations and deployment patterns. However, the committee
understands that such submarines create wakes that can alter
water column stresses and seafloor roughness over movable
sediment beds, and that alteration of this roughness could
leave a detectable non-acoustical signature that can be
exploited to identify and track enemy forces in littoral zones,
and also help to guide mobility operations of U.S. forces. The
committee notes that recent advancements in multi-beam sonar
processing technologies may allow for the near real-time
detection of the small mobile roughness elements. Therefore,
the committee encourages the Navy to evaluate advanced concepts
and technologies for non-acoustic submarine detection focused
on littoral zone seafloor scarring.
University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System ships
The committee recognizes that there is a growing need for
at-sea research and development platforms, especially with
regard to the development and testing of new anti-submarine
warfare technologies. In particular, the committee understands
that there is a focus on new operational concepts that promise
to improve wide area surveillance, detection, and attack
capabilities against quiet adversary submarines operating in
noisy and shallow water environments. A key element of this
assessment process is support provided by the University-
National Oceanographic Laboratory System ships and their
research base to assist in anti-submarine warfare research. The
committee supports continued investment in the University-
National Oceanographic Laboratory System ships and would urge
the Department of the Navy to continue this critical research.
Unmanned aerial system electronic attack demonstration
The budget request contained $7.8 million in PE 64376M for
Marine Air-Ground Task Force electronic warfare development,
but included no funds for an unmanned aerial system (UAS)
electronic attack demonstration.
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy
conducted a demonstration of an unmanned MQ-9 Reaper in a
weapons and tactics instructor exercise at the Naval Air
Weapons Station China Lake, California, in October 2013, which
included 86 aircraft, over 200 aircrew members and over 3,000
ground forces in a realistic threat environment. The committee
understands that the MQ-9 was configured with a prototype
stand-off jamming system which was able to defeat early warning
threat radars, allowing the F/A-18 and AV-8B aircraft to
penetrate the simulated enemy air defenses. The committee
further notes that the unmanned MQ-9 Reaper would provide over
20 hours of on-station time, which is about 15 hours longer
than manned aircraft with similar capabilities, and would
require less logistical support in a deployed location.
Based on the results of the October 2013 demonstration and
the ability of a UAS to perform an airborne electronic warfare
mission, the committee encourages the Department of the Navy to
continue to pursue this capability by conducting a more
sophisticated demonstration in fiscal year 2015 that would
include multiple UAS electronic attack aircraft with a UAS
mission package that includes electronic attack, electronic
support measures and communication features.
Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike Program
The budget request contained $403.0 million in PE 64404N
for Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike
(UCLASS) development.
The committee believes that current UCLASS Air System
Segment requirements will not address the emerging anti-access/
area-denial (A2/AD) challenges to U.S. power projection that
originally motivated creation of the Navy Unmanned Combat Air
System (N-UCAS) program during the 2006 Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR), and which were reaffirmed in both the 2010 QDR
and 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. In particular, the
disproportionate emphasis in the requirements on unrefueled
endurance to enable continuous intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) support to the Carrier Strike Group (CSG),
a capability need presumably satisfied by the planned
acquisition of 68 MQ-4C Tritons, would result in an aircraft
with serious deficiencies in both survivability and internal
weapons payload capacity and flexibility. Further, the cost
limits for the aircraft are more consistent with a much less
capable aircraft and will not enable the Navy to build a
relevant vehicle that leverages readily available and mature
technology. As planned, UCLASS appears unsupportive of the 2012
Defense Strategic Guidance for the United States to ``maintain
its ability to project power in areas in which our access and
freedom to operate are challenged.''
The committee believes that the Navy needs a long-range,
survivable unmanned ISR-strike aircraft as an integral part of
the carrier air wings as soon as possible. However, investing
in a program today that does not adequately address the threat
will only delay, and could preclude, investment in and fielding
of the right system later. Therefore, the committee believes
special attention needs to be paid to threshold UCLASS
requirements.
Finally, the committee is concerned with multiple aspects
of the proposed UCLASS acquisition strategy, including:
insufficient time and funding for contractors to mature their
designs in support of a full-scope Preliminary Design Review,
due in part to late-developing and still-evolving air system
performance requirements; the additional risk to the program
associated with the Navy's decision to abandon the precision
landing system developed and successfully tested during the
UCAS-D effort; and the potential risk associated with NAVAIR
developing the UCLASS Mission Control System internally.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a review of the requirements for a carrier-based
unmanned aircraft system to extend the ISR and precision strike
reach of the carrier air wing in A2/AD threat environments
projected for 2025-2035, and to provide a report on the review
to the congressional defense committees by December 30, 2014.
The review should pay special attention to revised threshold
requirements for unrefueled mission endurance, automated aerial
refueling, refueled mission endurance, survivability, internal
weapons carriage and flexibility, and autonomy/mission control
system functionality. It should include mission- and campaign-
level quantitative analysis of representative carrier-based
unmanned air system missions in the 2025-2035 timeframe,
including but not limited to ISR, precision strike, and
electronic attack. It should also consider the overall
composition of the future carrier air wing, including the
optimal mix of manned and unmanned squadrons, for conducting
representative joint ISR-strike campaigns in the 2030
timeframe. The committee also includes a provision elsewhere in
this Act that would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from
awarding a contract for the UCLASS air vehicle segment until
the Secretary of Defense completes the requirements review and
provides the report to the congressional defense committees.
Virginia Payload Module program
The budget request contained $132.6 million in PE 64580N
for development of the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) program.
The committee believes that undersea strike capability will
be a critical capability for the U.S. military in the future,
as U.S. forces begin to operate in increasingly contested
environments. In addition, the committee notes that with the
pending retirement of the four guided-missile nuclear
submarines (SSGN), the U.S. military will lose a significant
portion of its undersea strike capability. The committee
believes that the VPM program is the lowest risk, lowest cost,
and best path for maintaining, and eventually expanding,
critical undersea strike capabilities. The committee also notes
that by integrating the new strike capability into Block V
Virginia-class submarines, the Navy is avoiding having to start
an entirely new program that could take decades to come to
fruition, whereas in contrast, the VPM program could provide
this new capability to the fleet in time to partially
compensate for the retirement of the SSGNs. Therefore the
committee continues to support the VPM program.
The committee recommends $132.6 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 64580N for development of the VPM program.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $23.7 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Air Force. The committee
recommends $23.9 billion, an increase of $125.5 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
research, development, test and evaluation, Air Force program
are identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Additive manufacturing
The committee is aware that additive manufacturing
techniques and capabilities have the potential to dramatically
lower the cost of maintaining aging weapon platforms for the
defense sustainment community. Currently, the Air Force uses
additive manufacturing for design iteration, prototyping,
tooling and fixtures, and for some noncritical parts. However,
in the future, the Air Force hopes to use additive
manufacturing for building actual aerospace parts. The Air
Force anticipates soon using additive manufacturing for parts
like fuel nozzles and heat exchangers. The committee believes
that the Air Force, and the rest of the Department of Defense,
can utilize additive manufacturing improvements to save money
in up-front manufacturing costs; improve fleet readiness by
creating on-demand alternatives to current parts supply chain;
reduce parts certification and transition costs; and reduce
costs with creative improved weapon systems parts that are
lighter and stronger. The committee encourages the Air Force to
look at creative applications of additive manufacturing
technology to reduce sustainment costs for its weapon platforms
and other systems.
Air Force tactical exploitation of national capabilities talon hate
program
The Department of the Air Force Tactical Exploitation of
National Capabilities (AFTENCAP) project pursues a wide range
of technological and operational objectives through transition
of proven national capabilities to warfighters for operational
use and participation in design of future national capabilities
in order to leverage them for tactical users. The committee
supports the TENCAP program.
The Talon Hate program, developed under AFTENCAP, fields in
fiscal year 2015 and should provide a unique multi-domain
capability to counter threats in the U.S. Pacific Command
(USPACOM) area of responsibility (AOR). The committee
understands the importance of reliable, jam-proof
communications between 4th and 5th generation fighters, the
need to broadcast multi-source information in a Link 16
compatible format, and the need to integrate national strategic
data into that communication network. While the Talon Hate
program will field four developmental pods for F-15s in the
USPACOM AOR, the committee is concerned that a strategic plan
to address this mission has not been developed, along with an
analysis of alternative technical approaches to meeting the
associated warfighter requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs that the Secretary of the
Air Force, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, by February 16, 2015, on the enduring military
requirements associated with the Talon Hate program, a
comprehensive cost and benefit analysis of the various
technical approaches to solving those requirements, and the
associated strategic plan to addressing the requirements
including near and mid-term recommendations.
Air Force weapons simulation framework
The committee is aware that the Air Force ceded ownership
of weapon system models to the prime contractors in the late
1980s. At the time, the Air Force decided to treat weapons as
closed systems with the developer maintaining responsibility
for every element of the system, to include all simulations.
Government-owned models were relinquished and the government's
ability to conduct independent studies atrophied. The committee
is concerned that such processes put the Air Force at a
disadvantage to the commercial providers in the weapons
acquisition process, and run counter to trends like open
architecture, which allow the government to provide broad
architectural guidance but leave execution to the contractor.
The committee is aware, though, that the Army has
maintained its development of Government-owned simulation
resources in support of such programs as the Joint Common
Missile. This has allowed the Air Force to regrow some of its
modeling and simulation capability by working closely with the
Army. The committee urges the Air Force to continue to work
with the Army, and industry, to develop a conventional weapons
simulation framework to lower life-cycle costs for conventional
weapons and conduct benchmark tests for programs such as the
Small Diameter Bomb.
B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement program
The budget request contained $55.5 million in PE 11113F for
B-52 squadrons, but contained no funding for the B-52 Strategic
Radar Replacement (SR2) program.
The committee notes that the B-52 SR2 program is a radar
replacement program that could take advantage of the advanced
capabilities of modern, non-developmental radars, and maximize
commonality with other platforms. In April 2011, the Air Force
Requirements Oversight Council recommended replacement of the
existing B-52 radar with a non-developmental radar system.
However, due to Air Force budget affordability concerns
stemming from compliance with the Budget Control Act of 2011
(Public Law 112-25), the B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement
program was terminated in the fiscal year 2013 budget request.
In 2013, the Air Force reported to the congressional defense
committees that a radar replacement is estimated to be the
lower cost option rather than sustaining the current radar over
the projected service life of the B-52. The committee
understands the sustainment costs for the legacy radar system
are predicted to significantly increase after 2017 based on
obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing sources issues.
Therefore, based on the projected savings, as well as the
need for common conventional capability across the B-52
aircraft fleet, the committee encourages the Secretary of the
Air Force to include funding in the fiscal year 2016 budget
request that would begin replacement of the B-52 legacy radar
system.
Common airborne sense and avoid
The budget request contained $11.8 million in PE 35220F for
the design, development, integration and testing of a common
airborne sense and avoid (C-ABSAA) capability for unmanned
aerial vehicles.
The C-ABSAA system would provide the capability to
integrate unmanned aerial vehicles into United States national
airspace system and globally. The committee notes that plans
for fiscal year 2015 include continuing to refine C-ABSAA
requirements and continuing to mature the C-ABSAA system with
the Air Force Research Lab. The committee supports this plan
and encourages the Department of the Air Force to continue
annual funding to support a Milestone B decision in fiscal year
2019.
The committee recommends $11.8 million, the full amount of
the budget request, in PE 35220F for C-ABSAA design,
development, integration and testing.
Cyber operations program elements
The committee notes that the Air Force has created specific
program element and procurement lines for Offensive Cyber
Operations (OCO) and Defense Cyber Operations (DCO). The
committee is aware that this was done to consolidate the
funding activities in these areas into single program lines to
allow for rapid technology development and deployment for
offensive and defensive tools. The committee commends the Air
Force for being proactive in consolidating its activities,
providing transparency in oversight for Congress while also
allowing for rapid acquisition on the part of the Air Force.
The committee believes this is a model for program management
and oversight that should be emulated by the other services and
Defense Agencies, to the extent that is practicable.
E-8 Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System replacement
program
The budget request contained $73.1 million in PE 37581F for
Next Generation (NextGen) Joint Surveillance Target Attack
Radar System (JSTARS) research and development. NextGen JSTARS
would replace the current E-8C JSTARS aircraft and provide
battle management, command and control, intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance for the combatant commanders.
The Department of the Air Force currently plans to attain
initial operational capability with four NextGen JSTARS
aircraft in fiscal year 2022, and to attain full operational
capability with 16 aircraft in fiscal year 2025.
The committee notes that the E-8C JSTARS aircraft has
provided effective joint air command and control in both land
and maritime arenas. However, current JSTARS platforms are
aging and the sustainment costs have increased. The committee
also notes that the budget request includes a Department of the
Air Force proposal to recapitalize the JSTARS fleet with a
commercially available aircraft that will decrease the
logistics footprint, decrease sustainment costs, increase
operational flexibility, and operate in an anti-access/area
denial environment. The committee supports this decision.
However, the committee notes that past intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft programs have failed
due to the selection of platforms too small to properly support
the necessary mission equipment and crew. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Air Force to carefully review its
requirements for the crew size, electrical power, mission
systems equipment, and aircraft performance to ensure that any
new JSTARS platform can provide equal or better capability than
the current E-8C aircraft.
The committee also notes that the Department of the Air
Force currently plans to retire the JSTARS T-3 test aircraft in
fiscal year 2015 and to retire five additional E-8C aircraft in
fiscal year 2016. The committee further notes that that the
NextGen JSTARS program is scheduled to release a request for
proposal in late fiscal year 2015 and source selection is
planned to be conducted in fiscal year 2016. The committee
expects that the Department of the Air Force will take no
action to prematurely retire E-8C aircraft before 2016, and
before the committee is fully briefed on the acquisition
strategy, schedule, costs, and key performance parameters of
the NextGen JSTARS aircraft program.
Finally, the committee understands that the Department of
the Air Force intends to leverage high technological-readiness-
level communication, sensor, battle management and command and
control system technologies to reduce program cost, reduce
schedule and reduce risk of the NextGen JSTARS aircraft
program. The committee is concerned that a lengthy acquisition
program will result in a capabilities gap which will leave the
combatant commanders without an acceptable level of ground
moving target indicator and battle management command and
control capability for several years. The committee notes that
the JSTARS analysis of alternatives described a need for the
integration of existing technology rather than the acquisition
of new systems, and believes that the use of existing
technology combined with a commercially available aircraft can
result in a significantly faster acquisition program.
Accordingly, the committee urges the Department of the Air
Force to accelerate the NextGen JSTARS program.
The committee recommends $73.1 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 37581F for NextGen JSTARS research and
development.
EC-130 Compass Call aircraft replacement program
The committee notes that the current fleet of EC-130H
``Compass Call'' aircraft are the Air Force's only wide-area,
airborne Command and Control Warfare/Information Operations
weapon system, and that the Air Force plans to retire seven
Compass Call aircraft in fiscal year 2016. In addition, the
committee understands that the Air Force is conducting an
analysis of alternatives (AOA) on a follow-on capability to
replace the current Compass Call aircraft. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to
the House Committee on Armed Services not later than June 1,
2015, on the status and content of the AOA.
Ejection seat safety and reliability improvement program
The budget request contained no funds for the procurement
of modernized and upgraded ejection seats for Department of the
Air Force fighter and bomber aircraft.
The committee understands that aircraft aging and heavy
operations tempo have produced fatigue and corrosion in legacy
ejection seat designs which were designed and procured by the
Department of the Air Force in the mid-1970s. The committee
further understands that the incorporation of modern helmet
mounted displays creates significant risk to pilot survival
during high-speed ejections because aerodynamic forces at high
speeds within the current ejection seat operational envelope
lift the modern helmet off the pilot, generating high-neck
tension loads. Data indicates that the Joint Helmet Mounted
Cueing System and helmet mounted displays in tactical fighter
aircraft can structurally fail above 450 knots, which causes
wind-stream aerodynamics on the pilot's helmet to generate neck
tension loads over 700 pounds, well above risk-of-injury
thresholds to the pilot. The committee notes that the
Department of Defense Military Handbook 516B (MIL-HDBK-516B)
for Airworthiness Certification Criteria prescribes a
requirement for less than 5 percent risk of major injury
resulting from an aircraft ejection event, but that the
requirement stipulated is not being met today for ejection
seats in legacy fighter aircraft or fifth generation tactical
aircraft. The committee understands that state-of-the art
upgraded ejection seats can effectively address these risks
while at the same time providing significantly improved ease of
maintenance and increased aircraft availability, but the
Department of the Air Force has failed to take advantage of the
new and improved ejection seat technology that would greatly
enhance protection of pilots in ejection seat aircraft during
emergency situations. The committee notes that the high-speed
ejection of a tactical fighter pilot in January 2014 resulted
in a pilot fatality because of the ejection's high-neck tension
load encountered during the ejection.
Subsequently, the committee encourages the Department of
the Air Force to develop a strategy to begin replacing the
1970s-designed ejection seats equipped in most legacy fighter
and bomber aircraft as soon as possible. The committee believes
that minimizing sustainment life-cycle costs through
commonality with currently-fielded components should also be
included as a prime determinant in selecting an upgraded
ejection seat.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees with the submission of the
President's fiscal year 2016 budget to Congress, that
articulates which Department of Defense type, model, series
ejection seat equipped aircraft meet the aircrew survivability
and equipment airworthiness requirements stipulated by current
policy and regulation of the Department for pilots and aircrew
that wear advanced helmet display equipment, night vision
goggles, or both, during flying operations.
Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee establishes
two budget lines in research, development, test, and
evaluation, Air Force account, and the Aircraft Procurement,
Air Force account titled ``Ejection Seat Reliability
Improvement Program''. The committee recommends $10.5 million,
an increase of $10.5 million, of which $3.5 million is for
initial qualification in the research, development, test, and
evaluation, Air Force account, and $7.0 million is for initial
installation of upgraded ejection seats in the Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force account.
F-35 25mm cannon ammunition
The committee is concerned about the Air Force's plans for
evaluating and fielding 25mm cannon ammunition for the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter. Specifically, the committee is concerned
about the procurement of some types of 25mm ammunition,
potentially at the exclusion of any alternative North American
National Technology Industrial Base offerings. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than August 1, 2014, on the Air Force's plans to evaluate,
test, and field 25mm cannon ammunition for the Air Force's F-35
fleet.
F-35 aircraft program
The F-35 aircraft program is the largest acquisition
program within the Department of Defense, with a current
planned procurement of 2,443 aircraft for the Navy, Marine
Corps, and Air Force to meet fifth generation U.S. fighter
requirements. The committee notes that despite the decreased
budget authority contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011
(Public Law 112-25), the Department has not decreased its
planned procurement of 2,443 aircraft. The committee strongly
supports the requirement for fifth generation fighter aircraft
due to projected increases in the effectiveness and quantities
of threat anti-aircraft ground systems and adversary aircraft
and their associated air-to-air weapons. The committee believes
that without advanced fifth generation aircraft, the United
States may be significantly limited in its ability to project
power in the future.
The F-35 program is approximately 50 percent through its
flight test program which is planned to be completed in the
first quarter of fiscal year 2018. At a hearing held by the
House Committee on Armed Services' Subcommittee on Tactical Air
and Land Forces on March 26, 2014, the F-35 program executive
officer testified that the F-35 program is making slow but
steady progress. The committee notes that the F-35 program
executive officer has identified the software development for
the final development software block, known as block 3F, as an
area with some risk remaining, which could result in a 4- to 6-
month delay in delivery of software block 3F. In the committee
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee expressed
a concern about delayed software development and recommended a
provision that would require the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to establish an
independent team consisting of subject matter experts to review
the development of F-35 software and to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees. This provision was included
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Public Law 113-66). The committee expects this report to be
submitted by June 2014, and will consider future actions based
on the recommendations submitted by the independent team of
subject matter experts.
F-35 block 4 program
The budget request contained $71.8 million in PE 20714F, PE
64800N, and PE 64800M for development of the F-35 block 4.
The F-35 block 4 program is planned to provide follow-on F-
35 capabilities after completion of the engineering and
manufacturing development program, currently scheduled for
October 2017, which would include the integration of additional
U.S. and partner nation weapons into the F-35 aircraft. The
block 4 program would also provide a dual-capable F-35A
aircraft for the Air Force, allowing it to perform both
conventional and nuclear strike missions. Currently, the dual-
capable mission is performed by both F-16 and F-15E aircraft.
The committee supports the F-35 block 4 program, which is
developing a streamlined approach to deliver capabilities as
soon as feasible. The committee notes that the block 4
development program would be completed in two parts, a block 4A
and block 4B, and further notes that the block 4B program is
currently expected to achieve its initial operational
capability in fiscal year 2024. The committee understands that
the dual-capable F-35 aircraft would be included in block 4B,
and to replace the aging F-16 fleet, the committee encourages
the Department of the Air Force to accelerate the completion of
block 4B with future budget requests.
Ground Moving Target Indicator Way Ahead
Combat Operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
and the Republic of Iraq have highlighted a growing demand for
airborne ground moving target indicator (GMTI) sensing as well
as significant phenomenologically-driven performance
limitations in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism
operation environments. The committee understands that the
Department of the Air Force intends to recapitalize the E-8C
joint surveillance and targeting radar attack system (JSTARS)
fleet on a more efficient airframe with modern radar, avionics,
and communication systems, and on-board battle management and
command and control (BMC2) and Intelligence Surveillance and
Reconnaissance capability. Well ahead of the initial operating
capability (IOC) of any replacement platform, the Department of
the Air Force intends to reduce the E-8C fleet by nearly one
third, by reducing the E-8C JSTARS fleet from 16 to 11
aircraft, and to begin incrementally reducing associated E-8C
JSTARS manpower.
At the same time, the committee notes that the Department
of the Air Force continues to test and field Global Hawk Block
40 aircraft with the multi-platform radar technology insertion
program (MP-RTIP) MTI radar, eventually fielding 11 high-
altitude, long endurance aircraft. The committee also notes
that the Department of the Air Force development efforts
relating to the vehicle dismount and exploitation radar (VADER)
transitioned to the Army with no apparent plan to field a
capability on Department of the Air Force remotely piloted
aircraft (RPA).
The committee is concerned that the volume and pace of
change in the GMTI development and fielding may be indicative
of a lack of precision in the underlying requirement set.
Clearly, the need to recapitalize the current JSTARS aircraft
is urgent, and the committee believes a rapid acquisition to
achieve the required BMC2 and ISR capabilities is necessary.
While the JSTARS recapitalization platform is planned to
achieve far better performance in the areas of higher
altitudes, superior sensing, increased operational availability
and speed, the number of platforms to be fielded is identical
to that of the current JSTARS fleet. However, the requirement
for the number of JSTARS was established long before 11 long-
endurance high altitude GMTI platforms were developed. Also,
limitations in GMTI performance against dismounts that led to
the development of the VADER have not been fully addressed as
part of the JSTARS recapitalization plan.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees and the congressional intelligence committees by
February 16, 2015, that captures the aggregate requirement for
GMTI capability and capacity for the Department of Defense. The
report should detail the current validated requirements for
GMTI capabilities and capacities. Requirements should be
expressed in terms of sensor fidelity using metrics such as
ground radar coverage area, revisit rate, minimum detection
velocity, target locating error, radar imaging, hours on-
station per mission per month per year, sorties per month and
per year, and anticipated targets types and density. The report
should also highlight the degree to which the current Air Force
plan, including the near-term reductions in JSTARS capacity and
the end-state aggregate of 27 MTI aircraft compare to the
underlying requirements.
Metals Affordability Initiative
The budget request contained $32.2 million in PE 63112F for
advanced materials for weapons systems. Of this amount, $5.4
million is estimated for the Metals Affordability Initiative
(MAI).
The committee notes that the MAI is a public-private
partnership that includes the entire domestic specialty
aerospace metals industrial manufacturing base. Air Force
participation with MAI has resulted in significant improvement
in the manufacture of specialty metals for aerospace
applications, including aluminum, beryllium, nickel-based
superalloys and titanium. Due to the widespread use and need
for the Department of Defense, the committee encourages the Air
Force to engage with the other military departments and
agencies to ensure they are able to leverage MAI for their
specific needs. In addition, the committee encourages the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and
Industrial Base Policy to examine the MAI partnership model to
determine if it might be integrated into the work of the
Lightweight and Modern Metals Manufacturing Innovation
Institute in the advanced manufacturing initiative.
The committee recommends $42.2 million, an increase of
$10.0 million, in PE 63112F for the MAI program.
Nuclear command and control for enduring tanker aircraft
As the Air Force recapitalizes its tanker fleet, the
committee believes it is important that nuclear command and
control requirements for tankers be revalidated and a long-term
plan be developed to fulfill any unmet requirements. Therefore,
the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, in consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force and
the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to review, and if
appropriate update, the requirements contained in Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 6811.01C related
to nuclear command, control, and communications for tanker
aircraft. The committee further directs the Chairman to submit
a report to the congressional defense committees by April 1,
2015, on the results of this review.
Additionally, in the event that, subsequent to the
Chairman's update, there are any unmet requirements contained
in the updated 6811.01C for enduring tanker aircraft, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a
plan to the congressional defense committees by November 1,
2015, to ensure that enduring tanker aircraft meet all
requirements contained in CJCSI 6811.01C, as updated, related
to nuclear command, control, and communications. The plan
should include a schedule for updating all enduring tanker
aircraft to meet any unmet requirements as well as associated
costs and program details for such a plan.
Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization program
The budget request contained $11.0 million in PE 41319F for
the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR) program.
The committee understands that the Air Force plans to
develop the PAR acquisition strategy, complete milestone B
documentation, continue market research, and develop the
Systems Requirements Document in fiscal year 2014 and
throughout fiscal year 2015. The committee is also concerned
that the Air Force is planning to circumvent section 2366b of
title 10, United States Code, regarding the requirement to
complete a Preliminary Design Review prior to commencement of
milestone B and contract award for the aircraft selection. As
well, the Systems Requirements Review will not occur until at
least 6 months after the aircraft selection. The committee also
understands that the Secretary of the Air Force may attempt to
assume the roles and responsibilities of PAR product support
manager, system and subsystems integrator, and engineering
systems and technical authority, which is a departure from past
and current practices for those functions regarding
presidential support aircraft. The committee believes this may
increase risk to product development and execution of life-
cycle sustainment activities of the PAR program.
Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a
provision that would require the Secretary of the Air Force to
complete a Preliminary Design Review for the PAR program prior
to the Milestone Decision Authority awarding a milestone B and
contract approval for the PAR program. Further, the committee
encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to comprehensively
reassess the risk in assuming the aforementioned product
support and integration management responsibilities, that have
otherwise been the responsibility of the Original Equipment
Manufacturer, for presidential support airlift aircraft.
The committee recommends $11.0 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 41319F for the PAR program.
Wide area surveillance
The budget request contained $20.6 million in PE 35206F for
development of airborne reconnaissance systems, but contained
no funding for development of wide area surveillance.
The committee notes that persistent day and night wide-area
motion imagery (WAMI) capability is flying in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, and is considered by operational
commanders to be a critical intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance program for combat units.
The committee also notes that Congress provided an increase
of $10.0 million in fiscal year 2014 to begin integration of a
near-vertical direction finding capability into an existing
WAMI-equipped MQ-9 unmanned aerial system, which is resulting
in a multi-intelligence capability. The committee understands
that the Department of the Air Force plans to fund a WAMI
system in fiscal year 2016 to begin a program of record. The
committee is concerned that without funding in fiscal year 2015
to continue development of the multi-intelligence capable wide-
area surveillance system, engineering teams will be reduced or
disbanded, technical support to deployed systems will be
impacted, and program improvement efforts will be reduced or
terminated. The committee further notes that the Chief of Staff
of the Air Force included an increase of $10.0 million for a
WAMI sensor program among his unfunded priorities for fiscal
year 2015.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $30.6 million, an
increase of $10.0 million, in PE 35206F for further development
of WAMI.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request contained $16.8 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide. The committee
recommends $17.0 billion, an increase of $223.3 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide
program are identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Analysis of Alternatives for Undersea Clandestine Insertion of Special
Operations Forces
The committee is aware of a recently completed Analysis of
Alternatives (AOA) for Undersea Clandestine Insertion of
Special Operations Forces and that the review provides
alternatives for continued operational capability as well as
future growth for Navy Sea, Air, Land undersea insertion
capabilities. The committee understands that this AOA included
representatives from U.S. Special Operations Command, the
Department of the Navy (Program Executive Officer, Submarines),
and the Joint Staff and was coordinated by a study director
from the RAND Corporation, a Federally Funded Research and
Development Center. The committee understands that the final
publication of the AOA was to be made available to the
congressional defense committees in March 2014.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a copy of the Analysis of Alternatives report in its
entirety and a briefing on the report to the congressional
defense committees by July 1, 2014. The report and briefing
should be presented to the committees in unclassified and
classified formats as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Segment
The budget request includes $1.004 billion for the
Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense Segment in PE
63882C for activities in research, development, test and
evaluation, Defense-wide.
The committee observes that while this is an increase for
this program element, also referred to as the Ground-based
Midcourse Defense (GMD) segment, in the fiscal year 2015 budget
request when compared to the fiscal year 2014 request, that
this year's request also includes two new Missile Defense
Agency (MDA) activities, ``Improved Homeland Defense
Interceptors'' and ``Discrimination Improvements for Homeland
Defense'', not found in the prior year's request. Thus, the
basic GMD program funding has been cut in the proposed budget
request for fiscal year 2015.
The request supports the MDA's top management focus areas:
Capability Enhancement (CE) 2 Enhanced Kill Vehicle (EKV)
return to intercept activities; interceptor reliability
enhancements; sustainment of the weapons system; return to
Ground-based Interceptor (GBI) deliveries; Missile Field 1
refurbishment. The committee is concerned that as the only
operationally-deployed system for defense of the United States
against growing intercontinental ballistic missile threats,
additional investments are required to ensure GMD provides
reliable capability with long-term sustainment and
modernization of the Nation's most strategic defensive weapon
system. The committee observes this system is approaching half
of its life, 10 of 20 years, and additional funding may be
required to conduct a robust reliability growth and testing
program, and perform a modernization and technology refresh
program.
The committee is aware that following two successive test
failures of the CE-2 EKV (FTG-06 in January 2010 and FTG-06a in
December 2010), MDA completed a successful non-intercept test
on January 26, 2013. The next step for the CE-2 Return to
Flight will be an intercept test scheduled for June of 2014.
The committee is also aware that an attempted intercept test of
the CE-1 EKV on July 5, 2013, which represents two-thirds of
the operationally deployed GBI fleet but had not been tested
since 2008, failed. The committee eagerly awaits the results of
the Failure Review Board.
The committee recommends $1.044 billion, an increase of
$40.0 million, in PE 63882C for the Ballistic Missile Defense
Midcourse Defense Segment in research, development, test and
evaluation, Defense-wide. The committee expects these
additional funds to begin to correct the short-fall present in
the fiscal year 2015 budget request for the reliability,
refresh and modernization of the GMD system, including to
upgrade the Capability Enhancement-2 kill vehicle software and
batteries, the Command Launch Equipment Ground Fire Control
architecture that was begun in fiscal year 2014, and stockpile
reliability efforts.
Bioforensic threat detection
The committee is aware that detecting, deterring, and
defeating biological and physical agents used by terrorists is
of critical importance to national security. The committee is
aware that bioforensic detection capabilities can be helpful by
identifying molecular markers in human cells following exposure
to threat agents, and using suitable biomarkers for subsequent
detection using field deployable equipment. Such methods can be
used to rapidly identify and understand human individuals; drug
plant sourcing; plant-based geographic locations; and the
distribution routes of terrorist agents. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense to develop combined
government, academic, and industrial partnerships to field
small, deployable, and rapid bioforensic analysis capabilities
for Department operational forces.
Biosecurity in Department of Defense research facilities
The committee is concerned about the potential threat posed
to the United States by biological weapons. The threat of a
biological attack may come from a number of sources, including
state, non-state and even lone actors, as was believed to be
the case in the 2001 Anthrax attacks. The Subcommittee on
Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a hearing
on October 11, 2013, that examined the state of U.S. efforts
for biodefense. During that hearing, the panel of independent
expert witnesses was critical of the biosafety and biosecurity
procedures in medical research facilities, identifying a lapse
of proper screening and consistent procedures as a potential
risk with respect to lone actor threats. While the committee
notes that the biological agents stored in medical research
facilities are not the only source of weaponizable materials,
the committee believes the Department of Defense should take
all precautions possible to mitigate the risk of bioterrorism.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives not later than September 30, 2014, on
biosecurity procedures within Department of Defense biological
research facilities which handle or store Category A, B, or C
priority pathogens. The briefing should include a discussion of
personnel screening procedures, security procedures, and the
means for training personnel on safety and security procedures.
The briefing should also highlight any inconsistencies or
variability in procedures across the facilities.
Capabilities to experimentally study militarily-relevant High Reynolds
Numbers
In Department of Defense Directive 4180.01, issued on April
16, 2014, the Department provides policy and guidance on energy
planning, use, and management, and establishes an energy policy
to ``enhance military capability, improve energy security, and
mitigate costs in its use and management of energy.'' One of
the means to achieve these ends will include ``improv[ing] the
energy performance of weapons systems, platforms, equipment,
and products, and their modifications.''
The committee notes that mitigating turbulent boundary
layer drag, which forms along the surfaces of all aircraft and
marine platforms and produces a shear force that opposes the
motion of the vehicle, is central to the goals of reducing fuel
consumption and optimizing performance of military platforms,
such as ships, submarines, and transport and fighter aircraft.
Despite the critical and pervasive impact of these so-called
``High Reynolds Number'' turbulent boundary layers, the
committee is concerned that only limited domestic capability
exists to experimentally study them, though such studies are
critical to developing and applying advanced computational
techniques and empirical models to enhance the energy
efficiency and performance of military platforms.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering to provide a briefing to
the House Armed Services Committee on the Department's
technical capabilities to experimentally study military
relevant High Reynolds Number turbulent boundary layers and any
gaps in the capability to carry out such studies by February 1,
2015.
Chemical Biological Defense Program threat priorities
The committee is aware of significant efforts within the
Chemical Biological Defense Program (CBDP) to develop medical
countermeasures to protect U.S. troops from chemical,
biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats. The
committee notes that the development of a drug or vaccine to
treat or protect against a given threat in many cases will take
up to a decade from the time of conception through the Food and
Drug Administration approval process to be available for use.
However, the committee recognizes that the CBRN threat space is
constantly evolving in terms of the type and severity of
threats U.S. troops are likely to encounter at any point in
time. The committee is concerned about the mismatch in these
timescales, and therefore directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs
to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by September 30,
2014, on the approved process for establishing and validating
the priorities for the threats for medical countermeasures
research and development. The briefing should include a list of
the current threats, and the frequency with which the priority
list is updated.
Combat helmet test and evaluation protocols
The committee recognizes the National Academies, at the
request of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E),
has completed a study that reviewed current DOT&E test
protocols for combat helmets.
The committee understands the study undertaken by the
National Academies evaluated the adequacy of the Army's Combat
Helmet test protocol for both first article testing and lot
acceptance testing, including its use of the metrics of
probability of no penetration and the upper tolerance limit
used to evaluate backface deformation. The study also evaluated
the adequacy of the current helmet testing procedures to
determine the level of protection provided by current helmet
performance specifications. The committee notes there appears
to be a lack of biomedical connection between either brain
injury and performance metrics or penetration and backface
deformation, and no scientific basis for the choice of backface
deformation thresholds.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to
establish a research program to develop helmet test metrics
that have a clear scientific link to the modes of human injury
from ballistic impact, blast, and blunt trauma. The committee
recommends the Secretary of Defense ensure that appropriate
threats, in particular fragmentation threats, from current and
emerging threat profiles are used in combat helmet testing. The
committee also expects DOT&E to consider the findings and
recommendations in the National Academies study and make a
determination as to whether a new or modified first article
test protocol for combat helmets is required.
Combatant commands and science and technology Communities of Interest
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
engages in a science and technology (S&T) planning process
known as Reliance 21, which was established to coordinate and
reduce unwarranted duplication in service and agency S&T
efforts. The technical groups known as Communities of Interest
(COI) are the heart of the Reliance 21 process, and they cover
17 technical areas. The committee recognizes that the COIs
represent a key mechanism to assess programs, share
information, and, when needed, to develop long-term roadmaps
for key technology thrusts. However, the committee does not
believe that all of the combatant commands are included in this
COI process. Since most combatant commands have scientific
advisers, and some have funds and authorities to carry out S&T
programs, it appears to be an oversight for them not to be
integrated into relevant COIs. The committee urges the
Department to actively engage with combatant commands, such as
Transportation Command and Cyber Command, in the S&T COIs to
ensure their perspectives are included in current and future
roadmapping and assessment activities.
Combating Terrorism and Technology Support Office
The budget request included $69.7 million in PE 63122DZ8
for the Combating Terrorism and Technology Support Office
(CTTSO).
The committee notes CTTSO's unique contributions in
supporting the warfighter with the rapid acquisition of
counterterrorism and irregular warfare technologies and
capabilities. The committee supports CTTSO's unique business
model that rapidly identifies and prioritizes Department of
Defense requirements and conducts timely research, development,
testing, and evaluation projects. The committee recognizes the
important role CTTSO continues to play now and in the future
given evolving threats from terrorism and irregular warfare
challenges.
The committee recommends $89.7 million, an increase of $20
million, in 63122DZ8 for the Combating Terrorism and Technology
Support Office.
Conference restrictions for scientists and engineers
The committee is aware that one of the areas where the
Department of Defense has been trying to reduce its costs has
been in conference travel. With recent advances in
collaboration tools, video teleconferencing, and telepresence,
such travel can be reasonably scaled back in some areas with
little negative impact on the workforce.
However, the committee is concerned that blanket
restrictions on conference travel are having an acute negative
impact on the science and engineering workforce. The committee
recognizes that such conferences are not just professional
enrichment for this sector of the workforce, but are vital and
mission-essential tools of the trade. For example, scientists
and engineers use national and international sponsors of
professional scientific societies to peer review their work,
get exposed to the most recent advances in the international
academic community, and better understand the technological
advances of allies and adversaries alike. In addition, for many
scientists and engineers, participation in these professional
societies is essential for professional development in order to
attain fellowships and recognition within their respective
fields of endeavor. The committee is aware of anecdotal
examples of these travel restrictions, coupled with furloughs
and pay freezes, contributing to some members of the workforce
leaving public service.
The committee applauds the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics for recognizing the
problem and issuing a memo on February 14, 2014, to clarify the
guidance for technical and industry conferences. The committee
urges the Under Secretary to continue to highlight this issue
within the Department and to find appropriate mechanisms for
tracking compliance with this guidance, and find additional
means to support travel for the science and engineering
workforce to attend technical conferences.
Coordination of efforts for advanced manufacturing of medical
countermeasures
The committee is aware of multiple efforts in biological
defense within several Government departments and agencies, in
particular in the area of medical countermeasures (MCM). The
Chemical Biological Defense Program (CBDP) within the
Department of Defense has begun construction on an advanced
manufacturing center for MCM in order to address the unique
needs of the Department of Defense for medical countermeasures.
However, the committee is also aware that the Department of
Health and Human Services has also made significant investments
in constructing its own centers for advanced manufacturing. In
general, these centers will be focused on addressing the
requirements of the Department of Health and Human Services for
MCM.
In testimony before the Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Emerging Threats and Capabilities on October 11, 2013, the
principal investigator for the Texas A&M Center for Innovation
in Advanced Development and Manufacturing, one of the
Department of Health and Human Services centers, testified that
those centers were fully capable of meeting all Department of
Defense requirements for MCM advanced manufacturing. This has
raised questions regarding the need for the Department of
Defense to fund what appears to be a duplicative effort. The
committee notes that while there are differences in the
capabilities between the Department of Defense and Department
of Health and Human Services centers, there is also a
significant amount of overlap.
The committee is aware that coordination on research and
development of MCM is performed through the Public Health
Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE), in which
the Department of Defense is an active participant. These
coordination efforts are laudable. However, the committee is
aware that the PHEMCE is not directly managing the advanced
manufacturing process and will instead rely on a separate
governance board. In light of these facts, the committee is
concerned that, although the Department of Defense center for
advanced manufacturing is already designed and construction has
begun, the ability to coordinate with and leverage the efforts
of other Government agencies for advanced manufacturing does
not yet appear to be fully established, and therefore, the
possibility of inefficiency and unnecessary redundancy within
the Department of Defense is still significant.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs
to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees
by October 30, 2014, on the status of the coordination process
for the advanced manufacturing of medical countermeasures
between the Department of Defense and the Department of Health
and Human Services. This briefing should include the following:
(1) Details of the Department of Defense's role on the
governance board which oversees the advanced manufacturing
process, including frequency of meetings, level of interaction,
etc.
(2) The degree to which the Department of Defense is able
to utilize the Department of Health and Human Services advanced
manufacturing centers, including a discussion of time and cost
savings.
(3) Any application of best practices, lessons learned,
etc. from past coordination efforts with the PHEMCE with
respect to the current coordination efforts for advanced
manufacturing.
(4) Any obstacles to the coordination process, including
any issues which may prohibit or impede the Department of
Defense's ability to utilize the Department of Health and Human
Services advanced manufacturing centers.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Spectrum Challenge
The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) conducted a competition in 2013 and
2014 to develop advanced radio techniques capable of
communicating in congested and contested electromagnetic
environments without direct coordination or spectrum
preplanning. This DARPA Spectrum Challenge entailed head-to-
head competitions between multiple industry and academic teams,
including an opposing red team, in a structured testbed
environment that required teams to compete against one another,
as well as work cooperatively. The winning teams won prizes
totaling $150,000, and provided valuable insight for the
Department of Defense into possible technical solutions for
remedying the future spectrum crunch.
The committee applauds the creativity of DARPA in using its
prize authority to explore novel techniques for addressing
spectrum-sharing problems. As noted elsewhere in this report,
the committee is aware that spectrum is a vital national
security resource which must be actively managed to ensure
effective and efficient use that balances competing demands
between the services, other Federal agencies, and the private
sector. The committee sees this sort of competition as a useful
tool to address broader national challenges related to
spectrum. The committee encourages the Department of Defense,
as well as other Federal agencies, to creatively use such prize
and challenge authorities to find innovative solutions to
growing problems like spectrum efficiency and sharing.
Development of antibiotics against biothreats
The committee is aware that Category A and B bacterial
pathogens pose a significant risk to national security because
they can be easily disseminated, result in high mortality
rates, and require special action for public health
preparedness. In addition to the Category A and B pathogens,
the committee understands that there is a critical need for
antibiotics against other highly resistant bacteria which also
may pose a threat to the health and security of the Nation.
These issues reinforce the committee's concern about the full
spectrum of bacterial infectious diseases that pose significant
threats to our military. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency
(DTRA), together with the Chemical Biological Defense Program
(CBDP), have the mission to safeguard the United States and its
allies from chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
high-yield explosive (CBRNE) weapons of mass destruction by
providing capabilities to reduce, eliminate, and counter the
threat and mitigate effects. The committee recognizes that
there are ongoing efforts within DTRA and the CBDP to develop
antibiotics to combat these pathogens. However, the committee
is also aware that the current austere fiscal climate will
require these organizations to make difficult decisions
regarding funding and priorities for a number of efforts, which
may result in funding cuts for important research and
development. Given the threat posed by these Category A and B
bacterial pathogens, the committee encourages DTRA and the CBDP
to continue research on the development of antibiotics to
combat these pathogens.
Development of innovative detection and threat identification
technologies
The committee remains concerned about credible threats
posed by state and non-state actors in their attempts to
acquire and weaponize chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear and high-yield explosive (CBRNE) weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) for use against the United States and its
allies. The committee is aware that the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency (DTRA) continues to develop and field
technologies that reduce, counter, and eliminate the threat of
CBRNE WMD. The committee is also aware that as part of these
efforts, DTRA continues to invest in small lightweight, person-
portable detection equipment to detect CBRNE materials. The
committee recognizes the importance of this equipment as
enabling a wide range of operations within CBRNE environments,
and therefore encourages DTRA to continue the development,
demonstration and deployment of innovative and emerging
detection and threat identification technologies that are
useful across the widest-spectrum of CBRNE threats. In
addition, the committee directs the Director of DTRA to brief
the House Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2014, on
their efforts to advance and make operational a light-weight,
person-portable CBRNE detection and analysis device.
Electronic warfare roadmap
The committee recognizes the importance of electronic
warfare (EW) technologies, both for irregular warfare
challenges such as defeating improvised explosive devices, as
well as for peer competitors where anti-access and area denial
threats are paramount. As the technologies for electronic
warfare, signals intelligence, and cyber operations
increasingly converge, the committee believes that it will be
important to prioritize and coordinate science and
technological investments to maintain technological
superiority. The committee commends service research labs and
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for making
important EW technology investments, and recognizes the
critical role that the Department of Defense's Reliance 21
Communities of Interest (COI) play in identifying the critical
technologies that will be key for the United States to maintain
its global advantage in EW operations out to 2025. The
committee understands that the EW COI is working on an
electronic warfare roadmap, and looks forward to seeing that
document to better understand where the Department will be
making key investments across the Future Years Defense Plan.
Expeditionary airfield technology
The committee understands that Expeditionary Airfields
(EAF) are used by all the military services to support forward
deployed air operations, and that EAFs have the capability to
support all types of aircraft from all the military services in
full spectrum operations. The committee understands the
military services may require new EAF technology, an investment
that could be critical to enhancing forward deployed military
readiness in an expeditionary environment. Therefore, the
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees not later than February
15, 2015, on the following:
(1) The need for expeditionary airfields in the ongoing
threat environment;
(2) The capacity of existing EAF technology to support
additional air assets;
(3) The efficacy of expeditionary airfields in mobilization
and demobilization in theater; and
(4) The status of development of new matting technology
that can support additional weight and accommodate increased
thermal load and engine blast from vertical lift aircraft.
Field-programmable gate arrays for defense
The committee recognizes the importance of utilizing field-
programmable gated arrays (FPGAs) for defense application in
order to allow for greater flexibility in the processing power
of some defense applications. The committee is aware, though,
that such capability can also introduce vulnerabilities into
defense systems, and the Department of Defense is challenged to
find means to mitigate those potential vulnerabilities and
ensure a high level of trust for this class of microcircuits.
Further, the committee notes that the prevalence of foreign
FPGA providers makes trusted sourcing for these microcircuits
an additional security challenge that the Department must
address.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to conduct
an analysis of the Department's strategy for utilizing FPGAs
and to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 1, 2015 on the results of the analysis. The
briefing should address the following issues:
(1) How FPGAs fit into both Department's microelectronics
strategy, especially with regard to their use in both new and
legacy systems;
(2) How trust and security vulnerability can be mitigated
by the Trusted Defense Systems strategy;
(3) Any special budgeting, manpower, manufacturing or
acquisition issues that may need to be addressed by the use and
integration of FPGAs; and
(4) Recommendations for how to increase utilization of
FPGAs, and if necessary, production capacity.
Future vertical lift
In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the
committee directed the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees providing the status of the
Department's engagement with the Vertical Lift Consortium on
related technology requirements and development strategies for
next-generation vertical lift aircraft.
The committee notes that the required report was delivered
to the congressional defense committees on May 13, 2013. The
committee recognizes incremental improvements or upgrades to
current Department rotorcraft will not fully meet future joint
service operational requirements. The committee supports the
development of future vertical lift aircraft and encourages the
Department to expand the prototyping program to include
vertical lift aircraft. The committee also understands that a
key aspect of this program is the Joint Multi-Role (JMR)
Aircraft Demonstrator. The program includes related research on
next-generation rotors, drive trains, engines, sensors, and
survivability. The committee encourages the Department to
provide additional funding for this program in the fiscal year
2016 budget request.
Guidance on utilizing non-profit research institutes
The committee recognizes that independent, non-profit
research institutions provide value to the research and
development portfolios of the Department of Defense. The
committee believes that non-profit research institutions have
unique capabilities, experience, and infrastructure that are
well suited to technology maturation, risk reduction, and
transition to programs of record.
As noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014, the committee is aware the Department is examining
ways to better utilize the unique capabilities and expertise of
non-profit research institutions, especially in the area of
transitioning innovation to commercialization. Furthermore, the
committee understands that the Department has been evaluating
how to better utilize the special authorities within the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations in order to better
leverage the capabilities of the non-profit research community.
The committee is concerned that the Department has not clearly
articulated that policy to the broader research and acquisition
community to inform them of how they might best leverage those
capabilities, and the special contracting authorities that
might be used.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to issue updated policy guidance related to the use of non-
profit research institutions that clarifies their role in the
research ecosystem, as well as the special provisions within
the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations that support their
use. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary to
submit the updated policy guidance to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by March 1,
2015.
Health of the research and development enterprise
The committee remains concerned about the long-term health
of the Department of Defense research and development
enterprise. There are currently 67 Department laboratories
across 22 states, 10 federally funded research and development
centers (FFRDCs), and 13 university affiliated research
centers, as well as a workforce of 60,000 employees, of which
approximately 36,400 are degreed scientists and engineers. The
committee recognizes the pivotal role these facilities and
people play in maintaining the technological edge of the
Department of Defense and providing the necessary tools for the
warfighter. The committee is concerned that the declining state
of much of the Department of Defense lab infrastructure,
especially compared to academic, industrial, and international
counterparts, can also serve to dispel many of the technology
workforce that the Department would most like to attract.
The committee is determined to ensure that Department
research and development capabilities remain robust in order to
assure a vibrant and agile research and development enterprise.
The committee is concerned that declining budgets and
increasing threats are placing pressures on the Department that
may lead it to make short-term decisions with long-term
ramifications. The committee is unsure if the Department is
striking the appropriate balance between near- and long-term
objectives, which may negatively affect the overall health of
the research and development enterprise.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to task the Defense Science Board to conduct an assessment of
the organization, missions, authorities, and health of the
defense research and development enterprise, and to submit a
report on the findings of the assessment to the congressional
defense committees by September 30, 2015. The assessment should
include the following:
(1) How well do the defense laboratories respond to the
needs of the Department?
(2) What mechanisms exist to refurbish and recapitalize
Department of Defense labs, and how do those mechanisms compare
with other Government, academic, international and industrial
counterparts?
(3) How well does the Department attract, recruit, retain,
and train its workforce to remain technically current and
flexible to respond to emerging national requirements?
(4) Does the appropriate balance exist in each service
between service control and laboratory director discretion so
as to maximize laboratory mission effectiveness?
High-efficiency, conventional missile propulsion
The committee notes that munitions to support contingency
plans in the various combatant command areas of responsibility
may require long-range munitions to ensure adequate penetration
of anti-access, area-denial environments. The committee is
aware that technology for high-efficiency, conventional missile
propulsion subsystems necessary for such strike requirements is
limited and may require further research and development.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense
to adequately resource efforts to mature high-efficiency
conventional missile propulsion subsystems, and directs the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services
Committee by August 1, 2014 on current research and development
efforts in this area.
Hypersonics research
The committee recognizes that hypersonics technology
represents an important game-changing technology for the
Department of Defense. The committee is aware that the Army
successfully tested its Advanced Hypersonic Weapon in 2011 and
plans additional tests this year. The Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Air Force have cooperated on
several hypersonics programs that have advanced the state of
knowledge on materials and flight dynamics for such high-speed
vehicles. Additionally, the committee understands that DARPA
and the Air Force are beginning a new program to develop a
high-speed strike weapon that will combine the characteristics
of hypersonic flight with precision guidance to test a tactical
weapon system. The committee believes that as such technology
progresses, the Department will need to examine its test
infrastructure to determine if additional investments and
upgrades will be necessary.
The committee encourages the Department to continue to
pursue advanced hypersonic technology to improve strike and
reconnaissance capabilities, especially for denied areas. The
committee believes that such investments are necessary to keep
pace with foreign actors investing in similar capabilities, and
should also examine methods for defending against hypersonic
weapons as part of a balanced portfolio. The committee
encourages the Department to closely monitor international
hypersonics development efforts, as well as opportunities for
cooperation with foreign allies. The committee applauds efforts
such as the Hypersonic International Flight Research
Experimentation program, which was a joint United States-
Australian initiative to advance hypersonics technology, and
utilized shared testing facilities like the Woomera Range in
South Australia.
Internet access on Kwajalein Atoll
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
maintains a significant presence on Kwajalein Atoll, including
contractors and families, to support Department of Defense
activities there. Further, the committee understands that data
access for those families is limited to low-bandwidth phone
modems, which can negatively impact the welfare of personnel
and their families stationed at a remote location, where
electronic communications are useful in maintaining personal
and family relationships.
Furthermore, the committee notes that the Defense
Information Systems Agency (DISA) maintains high-bandwidth
network connections to the Atoll, which were designed with
additional capacity to allow for future expansions. The
committee is also aware of instances in the past when DISA has
provided additional networking capacity for morale, welfare and
recreation applications through base exchanges. The committee
believes that DISA could provide such capacity to families on
the Atoll with minimal effort and cost. Therefore, the
committee directs the Director, Defense Information Systems
Agency to submit a plan to the Committee on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives by March 15, 2015, on providing
internet access to families on Kwajalein Atoll.
Leveraging commercial technology for directed energy
The committee is aware of recent advances amongst the
military services to field directed energy weapons, including
the upcoming deployment of the Laser Weapon System onboard the
USS Ponce by the Navy, as well as the recent testing of the
High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator by the Army at White
Sands Missile Range. The committee congratulates the services
on this progress. The committee is also aware that the laser
systems used in both of these cases are commercial off-the-
shelf industrial lasers which were purchased and modified by
each service to be suitable for their respective military
application. In many cases, these lasers do not provide enough
power to achieve mission objectives, and there are several
research and development efforts underway to develop laser
systems which will be capable of fulfilling all mission
requirements. However, the committee recognizes that there are
many critical system engineering and integration problems that
may be solved using these lower power systems in the interim,
which will reduce both the time and cost associated with the
deployment of directed energy systems. Therefore the committee
encourages the Department of Defense agencies which are working
to develop directed energy weapons to continue to examine the
industrial base for technologies which may be utilized for
these systems, and to leverage such technologies whenever
possible.
Military service coordination and transition efforts for the chemical
biological defense program
The Chemical Biological Defense Program (CBDP) has the
primary responsibility to develop technologies to protect U.S.
troops from the threats posed by Chemical Biological
Radiological Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE) Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD). The committee believes that frequent open
communication between the CBDP and the military services is
critical during all phases of the research, development, test,
and evaluation (RDT&E) process for developing these
technologies. Such communication is necessary to ensure not
only that the warfighter requirements are being properly
addressed in the early planning phases of the RDT&E process,
but that the technology is transitioned to the military
services on an adequate timescale to ensure the safety and
protection of U.S. troops. Therefore, the committee encourages
the CBDP to continue to improve its communication with the
military services during all phases of the RDT&E process.
In addition, the committee remains concerned about the
level of protection currently available to U.S. troops who are
at risk of being exposed to CBRNE WMD, in particular with
regards to mission-oriented protective posture (MOPP) gear. The
committee is concerned that in many cases the equipment
available to the military units may be outdated or inadequate
to address current requirements. Therefore, the committee
directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear,
Chemical and Biological Defense Programs to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 30, 2014,
on the coordination between the military services and the CBDP.
The briefing should include details on the process by which the
CBDP solicits and incorporates input from the military services
into its planning and prioritization of RDT&E efforts, as well
as the current plans and efforts to transition the resultant
technology, including MOPP gear for CBRNE environments to the
military services.
Minority science and technology programs
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has
been working for many years to strengthen its role with
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and
Minority Serving Institutions (MIs), which not only support a
broad range of research, but also creates a diverse pool of
talented scientists and engineers that can support academic,
industrial, and federal research needs. The committee also
commends the Department for expanding partnerships with non-
profit organizations (NPO) that have a history of providing
scholarship, mentoring, and career advancement support to
minorities pursuing science and technology careers consistent
with Department mission and needs. The committee applauds the
former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering for issuing guidance in December 2011 to
reinvigorate the Department's relationship with HBCU/MIs. In
particular, this memo reiterated that ``[t]hese institutions
offer a talented science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) workforce that can benefit the research and
educational efforts of the DoD and the nation.'' This memo
focused on four areas of focus for action, including
information collection to:
(1) Develop and maintain statistics on HBCU/MI success
rates in response to competitive funding opportunities under
broad agency announcements and other solicitations;
(2) Ensure that HBCU/MIs are made of aware of the
opportunity for participation in all Department of Defense
sponsored activities that invite participation of institutions
of higher education;
(3) Encourage the use of Inter-governmental Personnel Act
agreements or other personnel-detail mechanisms with HBCU/MIs;
(4) Ensure that emphasis is placed on recruiting and
selecting HBCU/MI faculty to serve on Department of Defense
STEM scholarship, fellowship, and research review panels and
HBCU/MI students are informed of and encouraged to apply to
STEM scholarship, fellowship, and internship programs.
The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Research and Engineering to provide a briefing to the House
Armed Services Committee by December 15, 2014 on the measures
and metrics used by the Department to better understand how the
Department is fulfilling the guidance from the December 2011
memo. In addition to demonstrating the Department's progress
against the four goals above, this briefing should also examine
what minority science and technology workforce, professional
development, and technical assistance programs exist that could
benefit from increased participation with HBCU/Mls, as well as
what non-profit organizations exist that have a history of
assisting minorities and HBCU/minority-serving institutions in
expanding their participation in Department of Defense
programs, including the leveraging of both Defense and NPO
scholarship funds to achieve these purposes.
Multi-aircraft control of unmanned aerial vehicles
The committee is aware of the enabling effects of employing
large quantities of unmanned aerial vehicles on the
battlefield. However, the availability of pilots, and the costs
associated with training and employing pilots, has in some
cases limited the ability of the Department of Defense to mass
and capitalize on these capabilities.
Therefore the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide the congressional defense committees with a report by
February 15, 2015 detailing the Department of Defense's plans
to operationally test and deploy multi-aircraft control
technology. This report shall include a breakdown of the
efforts of each of the services along with the Department of
Defense's plan to integrate those efforts between the services
in order to minimize inefficiencies. The report shall also
address advanced technology development and experimentation as
well as the potential manpower savings of multi-aircraft
control.
Multi-mission airborne radio frequency systems for unmanned aerial
systems
The committee is aware that unmanned aerial systems (UAS)
are increasingly important in intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) missions. The committee also notes that
while the use of multiple-input multiple-output systems is
ubiquitous in commercial and some Department of Defense
applications, it is largely absent in various Department of
Defense airborne systems due to technological and operational
challenges. The committee is aware that there is ongoing
development of airborne radio frequency (RF) systems that could
potentially improve the operation of airborne platforms,
provide more robust anti-jamming capability, enable and enhance
information collection and sensing of the operating
environment, and incur minimum RF footprint to ensure a low
probability of interception.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department to
leverage existing research and development to develop advanced,
multi-mission, multi-antenna RF systems for UAS that will
significantly enhance ISR capabilities in tactical networks
resulting in improved mission success.
National Defense Education Program
The budget request contained $45.5 million in PE 61120D8Z
for the National Defense Education Program (NDEP) for the
purposes of attracting, engaging, and developing current and
future generations of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) talent to benefit the Department of Defense.
Of this amount, no funds were requested for pre-kindergarten-
to-12th grade (PK-12) STEM outreach programs.
The committee cannot stress enough that the recruitment,
retention and development of an experienced, technical
workforce is a critical national security requirement for the
Department of Defense and that these efforts must start at the
earliest stages of the STEM pipeline. The committee also
stresses that growth in STEM fields is important for the
general economic health and competitiveness of the nation, but
due to the special security requirements of Department of
Defense employees, this need is especially acute.
The committee understands that as the demand for a diverse,
highly skilled scientific and technical military and civilian
defense workforce grows, the Department will need to continue
to invest in strengthening local defense communities by
enhancing student engagement in STEM initiatives that support
the Department's research areas. The committee understands that
NDEP K-12:
(1) Builds student interest in STEM fields and disciplines
and in careers specific to the Department;
(2) Develops defense-relevant science, engineering, and
mathematics skills; and
(3) Provides a future talent pool to fulfill the
Department's demand for highly skilled STEM professionals by
increasing access to authentic STEM experiences.
The committee recommends $55.5 million, an increase of
$10.0 million, in PE 61120D8Z for the National Defense
Education Program. Of these funds, the committee recommends
$45.5 million, the requested amount for the SMART; and $10.0
million for PK-12 STEM outreach programs, an increase of $10.0
million. Of the funds requested for PK-12, the committee
recommends the Department use some of the funds to carry out
STEM activities that will support school districts with high
concentrations of military dependent families. Such activities
should include a focus on increasing teacher effectiveness as
well as student achievement. The committee also believes that
such outreach activities should look at opportunities to
support the development of a cyber focused skill sets.
Neuroplasticity research partnerships
The committee is aware of advancements in neuroplasticity
research made by university and non-governmental rehabilitation
hospitals that have collaborated to maximize what can be
learned regarding the brain's ability to develop and recover
when it has become damaged. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense's medical research and development
organizations to establish research programs with university
systems and non-governmental rehabilitation hospitals that have
partnered in order to develop rapid and innovative outcomes in
the treatment of service members with traumatic brain injury
that may lead to efficiencies in restoring brain recovery and
neurological function.
Optics and photonics for defense applications
The committee is aware of and recognizes the unique roles
optics and photonics play in our Nation's security, including
everything from information technology and communications to
medicine and advanced manufacturing. The committee understands
the United States has been the world pioneer in transitioning
optics and photonics research to national security
applications. Department of Defense contributions have been
pivotal in laying the foundation of those capabilities, from
early investments in lasers to the development of medical free
electronic lasers for military photomedicine applications.
The committee also understands that increased competition
has put America's leadership position at risk. Further, the
committee is aware that the administration is attempting to
address some of these competitiveness issues by creating a
number of advanced manufacturing centers, and has expressed the
intent in the fiscal year 2015 budget request to fund three to
five additional centers.
The committee recognizes that the National Academy of
Sciences report, ``Optics and Photonics: Essential Technologies
for Our Nation,'' emphasizes these findings. For example, among
its other findings, it noted:
(1) The federal government should develop an integrated
initiative in photonics that seeks to bring together academic,
industrial, and government researchers, managers, and policy
makers to develop a more integrated approach to managing
industrial and government photonics research and development
spending and related investments;
(2) ``The U.S. government, and specifically the Department
of Defense, should strive toward harmonizing optics with
silicon-based electronics to provide a new, readily accessible
and usable, integrated electronics and optics platform'';
(3) The U.S. defense and intelligence agencies should fund
the development of optical technologies to support future
optical systems capable of wide-area surveillance, exquisite
long-range object identification, high-bandwidth free-space
laser communication, ``speed-of-light'' laser strike, and
defense against both missile seekers and ballistic missiles;
and
(4) ``The United States should aggressively develop
additive manufacturing technology and implementation.''
Recognizing these imperatives, the committee encourages the
Department to consider the establishment of a National Center
for Optics and Photonics within its manufacturing mandate. The
committee believes that doing so would allow the Department to
create new opportunities for innovation, which will benefit the
Department on multiple fronts. Specifically, the committee is
interested in technological and manufacturing advances that a
National Center for Optics and Photonics could make in critical
defense applications such as advanced lasers, advanced optical
materials, data storage, communication technologies, and
sensors.
Prosthesis research
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
made significant investments in research for next generation
prostheses, particularly for upper and lower extremities. With
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan winding down
and current fiscal constraints on the defense budget, the
committee is concerned that the Department will begin to move
away from this area of research in favor of new topics for a
new security environment, leaving a void in this area. The
committee notes that while medical advances have dramatically
increased the survival rates of the warfighter, it has also
dramatically increased the number of wounded warriors requiring
intense, long-term therapeutic care. The committee urges the
Department of Defense to continue pushing the technical bounds
of regenerative medicine and prostheses, including the
development and refinement of new modalities for control of
neurological implants, in order to maintain its commitment to
the care and welfare of the wounded warrior community and their
families.
Redesigned Kill Vehicle for Homeland Missile Defense
The budget request contained $1.0 billion in PE 63882C for
the Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense Segment. Of
this amount, $99.5 million was requested for Improved Homeland
Defense (HLD) Interceptors development, which the committee
will refer to as the Redesigned Kill Vehicle.
The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA)
fiscal year 2015 budget overview documents state that the
budget request supports the initiation of the ``redesign of the
Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) for GMD [Ground-based
Midcourse Defense]. The redesigned EKV will be built with a
modular, open architecture and designed with common interfaces
and standards, making upgrades easier and broadening our vendor
and supplier base. The redesigned EKV will increase performance
to address the evolving threat; improve reliability,
availability, maintainability, testability and producibility;
and increase in-flight communications to improve usage of off-
board sensors information and situational awareness to
combatant commanders for enabling new tactics such as shoot-
assess-shoot.'' The committee expects the redesign will also
maintain the capability for the future modernization path for
the common kill vehicle phase II efforts that should achieve
the long-sought ``volume kill'' capability.
The committee has long believed that a new kill vehicle is
required for the homeland missile defense system, mindful of
the termination of one such modernization program in 2009, the
Multiple Kill Vehicle. For example, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239)
directed the Director, MDA to develop a long-term plan for the
exo-atmospheric kill vehicle. And, again, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66)
directed a plan, and authorized funding, for the development of
an upgraded, enhanced exo-atmospheric kill vehicle for the GMD
system that, ``is capable of being deployed during fiscal year
2018.'' The committee expects the Director to proceed with the
development, test, acquisition, and deployment of the
redesigned kill vehicle as directed in that Act.
The committee recommends $99.5 million, the full amount of
the budget request, in PE 63882C for the Redesigned Kill
Vehicle.
Space weather events research
The committee notes the value of the advice to the
Department of Defense, including the Department of the Air
Force and the Department of the Navy, for the pursuit of space
weather research and is aware of space weather impacts to the
electric power grid, global satellite communications, global
positioning system positioning and timing, space situational
awareness, and potential loss or degradation of these
capabilities. The committee is aware of the importance of
observations and research of space weather phenomena to monitor
and predict potential damage to the U.S. military and to
protect national technological infrastructure. The committee is
also aware that insufficient coordination and sharing among the
agencies could lead to duplication of effort and less effective
allocation of limited resources for this critical research. The
committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense coordinate
with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the
National Science Foundation to provide necessary observations
and support for research that will lead to reliable forecasts
of significant space weather events.
Special Operations developmental efforts for Tactical Assault Light
Operator Suit
The budget request included $10.0 million in PE 1160402BB,
Special Operations Technology Development, and $7.5 million in
PE 1160402BB, Special Operations Special Technology, to support
ongoing developmental efforts for the U.S. Special Operations
Command (USSOCOM) Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit (TALOS),
designed to improve operator survivability in direct action or
kinetic environments.
The committee notes that more than $4.5 million of fiscal
year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 Major Force Program-11 funding
has been put towards TALOS efforts thus far. The committee also
notes that despite aggressive marketing efforts by USSOCOM,
TALOS is not a program of record, but rather ``an overarching
vision'' that provides ``a coordinating focus for many of
USSOCOM's science and technology efforts spanning multiple
capability areas.'' The committee understands that present
efforts are being used to survey current technologies and to
better inform future requirements documents, and that USSOCOM
intends to deliver a fully functional prototype assault suit by
August 2018.
The committee is concerned that these requirements are not
being properly coordinated with related or complementary
efforts at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) and the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Systems Command. While
USSOCOM is the proper authority to define Special Operations
Forces peculiar requirements, it may not be the appropriate
entity to lead such developmental technology efforts, like
TALOS. While the committee understands that Natick Soldier
Systems Command is currently developing and partially funding
one of the two Generation I prototypes for USSOCOM, the
committee is concerned that USSOCOM is also funding outside
private sector research, and that overall efforts lack proper
coordination and oversight, systems integration and
collaboration, and prototype evaluation.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to brief the congressional defense committees by August 1,
2014, on the TALOS project and similar efforts to include: (1)
the overall TALOS requirement for U.S. Special Operations
Forces, including requirements validation; (2) a list of funded
activities for fiscal years 2013-14, as well as planned
activities for fiscal year 2015 and beyond, including efforts
through DARPA, Natick Soldier Systems Command, the other
military services, the Rapid Innovation Fund, and industry; (3)
coordination efforts undertaken with USSOCOM, DARPA, Natick
Soldier Systems Command and other similar ongoing research and
development activities; (4) project timelines including the
development of prototypes and anticipated funding; (5) any
other developmental efforts underway that could satisfy USSOCOM
TALOS-like requirements, and (6) any other items the Secretary
of Defense deems appropriate.
Special Operations Forces Survival, Support, and Equipment Systems
Program Management Office
The committee is aware of the research and development
(R&D) contributions of the Special Operations Forces Survival,
Support and Equipment Systems (SOF-SSES) Program Management
Office. These R&D efforts focus on improving personal
protective and individual support equipment as well as life
support and tactical combat casualty care for the warfighter
within the U.S. Special Operations Forces. The committee
recognizes the importance of these efforts for the sustainment
of the readiness and superiority of the Special Operations
Forces (SOF), as well as for the continued successful
completion of SOF missions. The committee encourages the U.S.
Special Operations Command to continue to maintain the
appropriate level of funding in order to sustain these
important efforts within the SOF-SSES Program Management
Office.
Technologies to improve spectrum efficiency
The committee is aware that spectrum is a vital national
security resource which must be actively managed to ensure
effective and efficient use that balances competing demands
between the military services, other Federal agencies and the
private sector. In the committee report accompanying the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(H. Rept. 110-652), the committee noted its concern over the
availability of spectrum for defense applications and the
increasing scarcity imposed by additional spectrum auctions and
competition with commercial wireless providers. For this
reason, the committee is pleased that the Department of Defense
has recently issued an Electromagnetic Spectrum Strategy to
provide more strategic guidance to shape the future of the
Department's spectrum operations. As noted in the new strategy,
``[the Department of Defense] must act now to ensure access to
the congested and contested electromagnetic environment of the
future. Specifically, the Department must adapt how it acquires
and uses spectrum resources. Our approach must include
acquiring more efficient, flexible, and adaptable systems while
developing more agile and opportunistic spectrum operations to
ensure that our forces can complete their missions.''
The committee is also aware that this strategy is the first
step in a longer process to develop a roadmap and action plan
to inform future actions and resourcing. In addition, the
committee believes that the Department needs to identify
opportunities where it should focus research and development
efforts to address any technological gaps, or where additional
testing for commercial technologies may be needed to integrate
into defense systems.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Defense to brief the House
Committee on Armed Services by January 15, 2015, on the status
of the associated Spectrum Roadmap and Action Plan, as well as
a science and technology roadmap for technologies that are
needed to improve spectrum efficiency.
Three-dimensional integrated circuits
The committee is aware that the changing market dynamics of
the microelectronics industry have led the Department of
Defense from being a market driver to a market follower. Except
in some highly advanced sectors requiring especially high
levels of trust, the Department will most likely be highly
dependent on outside market forces to supply its
microelectronics needs. For example, newly emerging technology
like three-dimensional (3D) integrated circuits (IC) are an
important technology that the Department will need to
understand and monitor in the future. Such complex, multi-layer
chips will provide new useful functionality, but also make
detection of supply chain vulnerabilities more difficult to
detect than traditional ICs.
In a report provided to the committee, the Department
indicated that there was a highly competitive supplier network
and sufficient domestic capacity for 3D ICs, but that there
were also ``impressive capabilities for 3D ICs being developed
and implemented overseas . . . largely through the support of
foreign government investments.'' The report also stated that,
``While there does not appear to be an immediate need for
creating any new domestic 3D IC manufacturing capabilities for
defense applications, making better use of the existing
domestic capability could be very beneficial for maintaining
DOD [Department of Defense] technology leadership and to avoid
surprises from potential adversaries.'' The committee urges the
Department to closely monitor developments with 3D ICs, not
only to leverage rapidly evolving commercial capabilities for
its own uses, but also to understand how potential adversaries
use these technologies.
U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation
The budget request contained $96.8 million in PE 63913C for
Israeli Cooperative Programs in missile defense for fiscal year
2015. Of this amount, $10.7 million was requested for the
Israeli Arrow program, $54.4 million for the Israeli Upper Tier
program (also known as Arrow III), and $31.7 million for the
Israeli Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense program (also
known as David's Sling Weapons System (DSWS)).
The committee supports these cooperative programs and is
pleased with the record of success seen over the past year. For
example, on January 3, 2014, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
and the Israeli Missile Defense Organization (IMDO)
successfully completed a flight test of the Arrow 3 Interceptor
missile over the Mediterranean Sea. This test was an important
step towards fielding an additional layer of defense, with exo-
atmospheric capability, against ballistic missile threats to
the State of Israel. Additionally, on November 20, 2013, MDA
and IMDO successfully conducted an intercept test using the
DSWS. This second intercept test of DSWS continues to prove out
the lower-tier capability Israel and the United States have
cooperatively developed for the defense of Israel.
The committee continues to support these cooperative
programs being mindful of the January 29, 2014, Annual Threat
Assessment testimony of the Director of National Intelligence
before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that, ``Iran
already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the
Middle East.''
The committee is also mindful of section 8070 of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (division C of
Public Law 113-76), which noted that of the $149.7 million
provided for the DSWS, $15.0 million was provided for
production of its interceptors in the United States and in
Israel. Given the significant ongoing U.S. taxpayer investment,
the committee supports co-production of these programs, and the
committee expects to be regularly updated on the implementation
of these appropriated funds.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee addresses the Iron
Dome system.
The committee recommends $268.8 million, an increase of
$172.0 million, in PE 63913C for Israeli Cooperative Programs.
Vaccine research for equine encephalitis
The committee is aware that equine encephalitis is a
serious health hazard with potentially fatal consequences that
is prevalent in North, Central and South America, as well as
the Caribbean. Because equine encephalitis is naturally
occurring, but has also been investigated as a potential
biological weapon, the Department of Defense is developing a
vaccine for equine encephalitis that remains in Investigational
New Drug Status. The committee also notes that while equine
encephalitis is a high priority for the development of medical
countermeasures for the Department of Defense, it has not been
a priority for the Department of Health and Human Services due
to the relatively small number of occurrences within the
continental United States. The committee acknowledges that such
an investigational new drug might have application for the
civilian population, but the process for making a determination
to use these vaccines in cases of civilian emergency is not
well defined.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by December 31, 2014, on the coordination between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human
Services through the Public Health Emergency Medical
Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE). This briefing should
discuss the mechanisms by which medical countermeasures, which
are developed by the Department of Defense could be made
available to the civilian population should the need arise,
with emphasis on vaccines that may only exist in the Department
of Defense stockpile. The briefing should also include any
obstacles to employing such a process.
Validation of near-term counter-electronics capability
The committee is aware that the Air Force and the
Department of Defense completed a Joint Concept Technology
Demonstration (JCTD) for a high-powered microwave cruise
missile in 2012. The Counter-electronics High power microwave
Missile Project (CHAMP) JCTD demonstrated a multi-shot and
multi-pulse high power microwave warhead integrated into an
existing cruise missile which is capable of delivering low-
collateral damage attacks against electronic systems in
facilities. The committee understands that such systems still
require development to provide capabilities in a small form-
factor and in a reusable platform, as well as additional
modeling and simulation to better characterize effects and
battle damage assessment.
Furthermore, the committee is aware that the Air Force is
conducting an analysis of alternatives to determine if there is
a need to develop a program of record for an enduring
capability that would refine the technology demonstrated during
the CHAMP JCTD, or look at other technologies to provide non-
kinetic counter-electronic effects. As noted in Section 267 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Public Law 113-66), CHAMP (or a variant thereof) ``should be
considered among the options for a possible materiel solution
in response to any near-term joint urgent operational need,
joint emerging operational need, or combatant command
integrated priority for a non-kinetic counter-electronic
system.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the combatant commanders,
to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee by
February 15, 2015 on the need for a near-term counter-
electronics capability. This briefing should examine the
combatant command integrated priority lists for each of the
geographic and functional combatant commands to determine if
there is an urgent or emerging need for CHAMP or a similar
system that should be addressed within the next two to three
years. If such needs exist, the briefing should also include a
determination of whether or not a joint urgent operational need
statement, or a joint emerging operational need statement, will
be submitted by the affected combatant commands.
Vapor compression cooling systems technology
The committee notes that the majority of Department of
Defense electronic systems intended for field use in harsh
environments use thermoelectric cooling technology and that
this method of cooling is often required in Department of
Defense requests for proposals. The committee also notes that
vapor compression electronic cooling technology may provide
cooling systems that are smaller, more energy efficient, cost
effective and reliable than the legacy systems.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives not later than June 1,
2015, addressing where vapor compression thermal management
systems may best be used in remote or mobile applications to
cool electronics. The report should include, at a minimum, the
process used to identify specific programs where these thermal
management systems could be appropriate and examples of
programs using deployed electronics that have effectively used
vapor compression thermal management systems.
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
Overview
The budget request contained $167.7 million for operational
test and evaluation, Defense. The committee recommends $172.7
million, an increase of $5.0 million to the budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2015
operational test and evaluation, Defense program are identified
in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Information Assurance and Interoperability Program
The committee is aware that the Director for Operational
Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) is responsible for the Information
Assurance (IA) and Interoperability Program (IOP), which
provides assessments of services and combatant command systems,
networks, and procedures during training and exercise venues.
The committee believes cyber-range capabilities which are
beginning to be used in such assessments may also be employed
to assess the cybersecurity and interoperability of acquisition
systems during development and prior to fielding. The committee
further believes that for many acquisition programs, having
low-cost access to cyber-range environments that can replicate
the characteristics of systems and their operational network
could provide a safe and repeatable means to conduct more
rigorous IA/IOP testing during development than is currently
being done.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense Chief
Information Officer and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to work closely with
major program offices, cyber ranges, and the DOT&E to identify
such environments and develop opportunities to conduct early
IA/IOP testing of those systems during development. The
committee believes that earlier and closer cooperation can go a
long way to better position programs for successful IA/IOP
performance in operational tests and in the field.
Program reporting and metrics on penetration testing
The committee is aware that programs with significant
software components often conduct a variety of red teaming and
penetration testing to determine if there are cyber
vulnerabilities that might be exploited by sophisticated
adversaries. The committee is also aware that the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
and the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation are
revising policies to ensure that such testing becomes a
mandatory best practice. However, the committee is also aware
that no mechanism exists to provide periodic follow-up to
revisit testing to determine if the program has made any effort
at remediation. The committee encourages the Department of
Defense's acquisition and cyber authorities to develop some
sort of report card for programs to track their progress when
it comes to penetration testing and remediation to ensure
security requirements are not being ignored or given short
shrift when the pressures of budget, schedule, and performance
come into conflict. The committee believes that such measures
could be incorporated into existing reporting requirements,
such as the Selected Acquisition Reports.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for research,
development, test, and evaluation at the levels identified in
section 4201 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 211--Preliminary Design Review of Presidential Aircraft
Recapitalization Program
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to complete a preliminary design review of the Presidential
Aircraft Recapitalization program prior to receiving a
milestone B approval from the Milestone Decision Authority.
Section 212--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Armored Multi-
Purpose Vehicle Program
This section would limit obligation or expenditure of funds
to not more than 80 percent for the Armored Multi-Purpose
Vehicle (AMPV) program until the Secretary of the Army submits
a report to the congressional defense committees on the Army's
plan to eventually replace all M-113 Armored Personal Carriers
(APC) within Echelons-Above-Brigade (EAB) formations.
The committee notes that in 2007, the Army identified the
M-113 APC for replacement due to its inadequate survivability
and force protection. The committee further notes that in the
committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and in the
committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee
provided numerous options for consideration by the Army to
accelerate the AMPV program. The committee understands that the
Army has released a Request for Proposal for the Echelons-
Below-Brigade (EBB) requirement which is focused on
survivability shortfalls within the Armor Brigade Combat Team.
The committee continues to support the AMPV program and expects
the Army to conduct the competition in accordance with Federal
Acquisition Regulations.
However, the committee is concerned that although the
Army's current plan addresses a critical shortfall within EBB
formations, there is currently no plan to address the
survivability shortfalls within Echelons-Above-Brigade
formations. The committee understands that there are
approximately 2,000 M-113's within existing EAB formations.
In addition, the committee notes that on at least one
occasion, an Armor Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) deployed to the
Republic of Iraq with Stryker Medical Evacuation Vehicles.
Therefore, this section would also require the Secretary of the
Army to include as part of the report, an assessment for the
feasibility of incorporating medical wheeled variants within
the ABCT.
Section 213--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Unmanned Carrier-
Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from
awarding a contract for the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne
Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system air vehicle segment
until the Secretary of Defense completes a UCLASS requirements
review and provides the results of that review to the
congressional defense committees.
Section 214--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Airborne
Reconnaissance Systems
This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of
funds to not more than 25 percent for the imaging and targeting
support of airborne reconnaissance systems, until the Secretary
of the Air Force delivers a report to the congressional defense
committees and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate. The elements of the report would
include a detailed plan regarding using such funds for fiscal
year 2015, and a strategic plan for the funding of advanced
airborne reconnaissance technologies supporting manned and
unmanned systems.
The committee notes that the Air Force did not provide
substantive information for the proposed use of these funds,
aside from the general area of imaging and targeting support.
Section 215--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Weather Satellite
Follow-On System
This section would direct the Secretary of the Air Force to
place the last remaining satellite of the Defense
Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) on the launch manifest
for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program.
Additionally, this section would direct the Secretary to
establish an additional launch, for acquisition in fiscal year
2015, under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program using
full and open competition among certified providers. The
Secretary would have the flexibility to determine the
appropriate satellite launch to be competed.
This section would also limit 75 percent of the funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made
available for fiscal year 2015 for the weather satellite
follow-on system until the Secretary submits to the
congressional defense committees the plan to meet the
meteorological and oceanographic collection requirements
validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. The plan
must include how the Secretary will launch and use existing
assets of the DMSP; how the Secretary will use other sources of
data, such as civil, commercial satellite weather data, and
international partnerships, to meet such requirements; an
explanation of the relevant costs and schedule; and the
requirements of the weather satellite follow-on system.
Section 216--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Space-Based
Infrared Systems Space Data Exploitation
This section would limit obligation or expenditure of funds
to not more than 50 percent for the data exploitation under the
Space-Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS) space modernization
initiative, which funds modernization and evolution of
technologies to meet the SBIRS mission, until the Secretary of
the Air Force delivers a certification to the congressional
defense committees. The Secretary would be required to certify
that the limited funds available for this effort will be used
in support of data exploitation of the current SBIRS program of
record, including the scanning and staring sensor; or that the
data from the current SBIRS program of record, including the
scanning and starring sensor, is being fully exploited and no
further efforts are warranted.
The committee is concerned that the Air Force is not
focusing on developing the capabilities to fully exploit the
data from the existing SBIRS program. During the fiscal year
2014 budget request hearing for national security space
activities, the Commander of Air Force Space Command was asked
about SBIRS exploitation and responded that, ``We have not even
scratched the surface, I think, of the potential that's there.
We have another sensor that we haven't fully exploited yet as
part of that satellite. We're doing a good job on the scanning
sensor. The staring sensor, which has much better fidelity, we
really haven't fully wrung out yet, because we've been so
focused on getting the scanning sensor calibrated and
certified.'' The committee supports the Commander of the Air
Force Space Command's stated comments, and encourages the Air
Force to focus on achieving full performance and exploitation
of SBIRS.
Section 217--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Hosted Payload and
Wide Field of View Testbed of the Space-Based Infrared Systems
This section would limit 50 percent of the funds authorized
to be appropriated by this Act for hosted payloads and wide
field of view testbed alternative approaches to the Space-Based
Infrared Systems program of record until completion of the
ongoing analysis of alternatives (AOA). The funding would also
be limited until 60 days following a briefing to the
congressional defense committees and congressional intelligence
committees on the AOA findings and recommendations of the
Secretary of the Air Force and the Commander, U.S. Strategic
Command, including a cost evaluation of the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation. The limitation would not
apply to efforts to examine and develop technology insertion
opportunities for the program of record.
Section 218--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Protected Tactical
Demonstration and Protected Military Satellite Communications Testbed
of the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Program
This section would limit 50 percent of the funds authorized
to be appropriated by this Act for protected tactical
demonstration and protected military satellite communications
testbed alternative approaches to the Advanced Extremely High
Frequency program of record until completion of the ongoing
analysis of alternatives (AOA). The funding would also be
limited until 60 days following a briefing to the congressional
defense committees on the AOA findings and recommendations of
the Secretary of the Air Force and the Commander, U.S.
Strategic Command, including a cost evaluation of the Director
of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. The limitation would
not apply to efforts to examine and develop technology
insertion opportunities for the program of record.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 221--Revision to the Service Requirement under the Science,
Mathematics, and Research for Transformation Defense Education Program
This section would amend subparagraph (B) of section
2192a(c)(1) of title 10, United States Code, by modifying the
service obligation requirement to also include employment with
a public or private sector entity or organization outside the
Department of Defense if the Secretary of Defense determines
that employment of the person with such entity or organization
for the purpose of such obligated service would provide a
benefit to the Department of Defense.
Section 222--Revision of Requirement for Acquisition Programs to
Maintain Defense Research Facility Records
This section would modify the requirements of subsection
(b) of section 2364 of title 10, United States Code, to
eliminate the need for acquisition programs to maintain a
record of all issue papers from a defense research facility
related to said acquisition programs.
Section 223--Modification to Cost-sharing Requirement for Pilot Program
to Include Technology Protection Features during Research and
Development of Certain Defense Systems
This section would amend Section 243(b) of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) by striking ``at least one half of the cost of
such activities' and inserting ``an appropriate share of the
cost of such activities, as determined by the Secretary''.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVERVIEW
While the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (division A of
Public Law 113-67) and the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) made notable progress
in restoring critical levels of military readiness to more
acceptable levels, challenges to full-spectrum readiness remain
in fiscal year 2015. Department of Defense officials have
highlighted persistent shortfalls in almost every area of
operation and maintenance, the main funding component for force
readiness, stating that, ``despite progress in buying back lost
readiness, current resources force a compromise of future and
non-deployed readiness to support today's forward operations.
This has led to increased risk in the military departments'
ability to meet new requirements or additional rotations that
are beyond the scope of their currently planned training and
deployment requirements.''
To continue reducing risk and improving the readiness of
the force, the bill would authorize additional budget authority
for multiple unfunded priorities of the military departments,
to include the restoration of funding for operational tempo,
flying hour programs, facilities sustainment, and depot
maintenance. The bill would also authorize additional budget
authority for readiness initiatives such as corrosion
prevention, control, and mitigation.
The Army has been in a state of continuous war for the past
13 years, the longest in the Nation's history. The Army also
supports operations and worldwide requirements with more than
168,000 soldiers deployed or forward stationed in nearly 150
countries. This high operational tempo and a primary focus on
counterinsurgency operations, coupled with tighter budgets,
sequestration, and a shrinking force, will continue to
challenge the Army's ability to provide a sufficient number of
Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) trained for decisive action, an
issue that must be addressed. While facing this challenge the
Army must also find a way to reset and reconstitute the force,
responsibly draw down operations in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, and fully develop its role under the Defense
Strategic Guidance. The Army must also find a way to keep the
National Guard and the Army Reserve as viable components of the
total Army.
The Navy has experienced 13-plus years of sustained combat
operations, the last seven of which have seen a significant
part of the force operating above a tempo level that is
sustainable for the long term, and this elevated pace of
operations is expected to persist in light of the combatant
commander demand for maritime assets. The stress induced by
this demanding operational tempo is reflected in a gradual, but
persistent, decline in fleet readiness for non-deployed forces.
Fiscal challenges and a limited budget continue to create
backlogs for Navy maintenance, specifically in aircraft
maintenance, and fiscal instabilities have resulted in de-
scoped ship maintenance availabilities from the previous fiscal
year. When coupled with the impacts of the sustained surge,
which has taxed both equipment and personnel at rates
significantly higher than anticipated, the tenuous progress the
Navy has made over the past 2 years to reverse degraded surface
fleet material readiness is threatened.
Despite slight improvements in Marine Corps readiness
levels resulting from the ongoing drawdown of forces in
Afghanistan, the Marine Corps will continue to be challenged in
meeting global commitments, reconstituting the force, and
sustaining high operational tempo as it downsizes to 182,000
personnel and faces a dramatic increase in demand for Marine
capabilities around the world. In particular, the Marine Corps
will be challenged to meet new crisis response force presence
demands in Europe, South America, and the Middle East in
support of Department of State and Department of Defense
missions as well as the expansion of critical legacy missions
such as the Marine Security Guard program, which is slated to
grow at an increasing number of high-risk embassies.
The Air Force is still slowly recovering from the recent
impacts of sequestration which led to one-third of Air Force
fighter and bomber squadrons standing down, curtailment of
training and lost qualifications, and adverse impacts on
officer development. The Air Force's recovery will remain
challenged with high operational tempo beyond the end of major
combat operations in Afghanistan. The committee is concerned
about Air Force estimates that it will be approximately 2023
before the Air Force fully recovers and operational risk is
adequately addressed. The committee is concerned about the
recovery of the Air Force, as its Flying Hour Program is
currently operating at full capacity, leaving no ability to
buy-down current backlogs in training.
The operation and maintenance funding authorized by this
title seeks to address many of these areas of concern. It
addresses depleted force readiness levels and related high
levels of assumed risk and makes several requests of the
Department of Defense to report on plans to address acutely
challenged areas and return the force to full-spectrum
readiness.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Budget Request Adjustments
Base Realignment and Closure 2018
The budget request included $4.8 million, in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, to support a request to conduct a
new round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) to align
infrastructure with planned force structure changes. The
requested funds would be used to develop recommendations and to
manage BRAC efforts.
The committee recommends no funds to support the
development of infrastructure recommendations prepared in the
context of a new BRAC authorization.
Corrosion Prevention
The committee commends the Department of Defense on the
formulation of policy and guidance to address corrosion, which
costs the military departments more than $20.0 billion annually
and leads to decreased readiness, increased manpower
requirements, and significantly higher life-cycle sustainment
costs. However, despite addressing the issue in the committee
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), the
committee is concerned about the pace of acquisition of proven
anti-corrosion products and the resulting impacts on
sustainment costs. The committee is also concerned about the
impact inadequate resourcing may have on the pace of anti-
corrosion technology development. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2015, on the
implementation of corrosion prevention measures both within the
military departments and the Corrosion Prevention Program
Office.
Further, the budget request contained $4.8 million in
operation and maintenance funding for the Corrosion Prevention
Program in addition to military department and departmental
research efforts to combat corrosion, which the committee
believes to be inadequate. The committee recommends an
additional $20.0 million to be divided equally among the
military departments' corrosion prevention efforts and the
defense-wide Corrosion Prevention Program.
Marine Corps Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces
The committee recognizes the importance of Marine Corps
Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (SPMAGTFs) in
meeting emerging combatant commander operational and force-
presence requirements. The committee understands that the
Marine Corps intends to expand the current SPMAGTF-Crisis
Response capability at Moron Air Base in Spain and stand up an
additional SPMAGTF in both the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)
and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) areas of responsibility
focused on crisis response, contingency, offensive and
defensive, security, humanitarian, and non-combatant evacuation
operations.
However, the committee is concerned that for the second
fiscal year in a row the President's budget request failed to
fully fund these critical requirements in the base budget. The
committee notes that it authorized an additional $40.6 million
in fiscal year 2014 to help the Marine Corps fund this emerging
requirement.
The fiscal year 2015 budget request contained $905.7
million in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, for Marine
Operating Forces which compose the core elements of the MAGTF
and SPMAGTF. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee would
authorize $939.5 million, an increase of $33.8 million, for
Marine Operating Forces to support the operation and
maintenance costs of creating the Special Purpose Marine Air-
Ground Task Force-CENTCOM and the Special Purpose Marine Air-
Ground Task Force-SOUTHCOM.
However, the committee expects the Marine Corps to fully
fund all SPMAGTF operations in future fiscal year base budgets.
Support for International Sporting Competitions
The budget request contained $10.0 million for Support for
International Sporting Competitions (SISC). This is a no-year
appropriation.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense is
working with Special Olympics International, Special Olympics
North America, and the Games Organizing Committee for the 2015
Special Olympics World Summer Games in Los Angeles to determine
the potential scope and scale of the Department's support. The
Department expects it will spend between $1.0 million and $3.0
million in SISC funding to support the 2015 Special Olympics
World Summer Games in Los Angeles.
The committee notes that as of March 2014, there is an
obligated balance of $3.8 million in this account, as well as
$4.3 million in allocated but unobligated funds. These
unobligated funds were previously allocated for certain
sporting events that have since concluded; therefore, the funds
are available for the next set of ``logistical and security
support for international sporting competitions,'' which is the
purpose of this fund.
Due to the availability of unobligated funds currently
within the account, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.3
million from the President's budget request.
Energy Issues
Comptroller General Utilities Disruption and Energy Security Mandate
United States military installations consume large amounts
of energy and water to maintain effective installation
operations and ensure mission readiness and capability. At the
same time, U.S. utilities systems may be at risk from civilian
power grid failures due to natural or manmade threats,
including cyber threats and electromagnetic pulse events. The
United States experienced significant power disruptions from
severe weather events in 2012, including Hurricane Sandy which
affected the northeast region, and the derecho which affected
the mid-Atlantic, including the National Capital Region, as
well as late winter storms in February-March 2014 that left
hundreds of thousands of customers without power in areas from
the Northeast through the Midwest and parts of the Deep South.
These weather events affected installations, housing, military
logistics centers, training centers, military commands, and
other critical military activities. As such the committee is
concerned that the impact of such disruptions to an
installation's electricity, potable water, and wastewater
services has a direct impact on critical mission readiness. It
is vital that military installations have the ability to
maintain effective operations and energy security despite such
disruptions.
The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense
and the military services are focusing on the potential for
utilities service disruptions to impact installation mission
capability and consequently to ensure the ability of the
installations to nonetheless maintain operations. Still, it is
not clear what efforts the Department is undertaking to ensure
and promote energy security across its facilities. Accordingly,
the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to undertake a study of the status of the Department's
and the military services' actions to ensure mission capability
and energy security in the event of potentially significant and
long-term disruptions to electric, potable water, and
wastewater services at domestic and overseas military
installations. The study should address the following
questions:
(1) What is the status of water and energy security plans,
strategies, and related guidance to the military departments
and the installations to ensure mission capability through the
continued provision of electricity, potable water, and
wastewater services in the event of natural or manmade
disruptions?
(2) To what extent were domestic military installations
able to maintain effective mission capability during natural or
manmade utility service disruptions since 2012?
(3) How are the military departments and installations
planning to continue ensuring mission capability and energy
security despite the threat to electric, potable water, and
wastewater services posed by natural or manmade service
disruptions? The Comptroller General should report the results
of this study to the congressional defense committees by March
2, 2015.
Marine Hydrokinetic Technology
The committee commends the Navy for efforts to assess ocean
energy technologies, as defined in the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140), and encourages the
Navy to continue its work with the Department of Energy and
designated National Marine Renewable Energy Centers for marine
hydrokinetic demonstration activities at or near Department of
Defense facilities. Waves, tidal and ocean currents have the
potential to significantly contribute to the country's
electricity production, and ultimately, help the Department of
Defense reduce its energy costs on military installations. The
committee recognizes the Navy's efforts to further test,
research, develop, and deploy maritime security systems, at-sea
surveillance and communications systems, and advance
opportunities to reduce the cost of energy and increase energy
security at Department of Defense facilities. Therefore, the
committee urges the Navy to continue their efforts in ocean
energy research and development where cost effective.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Energy Efficiencies
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
review of the energy efficiency initiatives, including non-
conventional power sources, of unmanned aerial vehicles to
extend range and endurance and increase speed. The review
should also include an assessment on how the adoption of
autonomous technology could reduce the demand for energy and
logistics. The Secretary should submit the results of the
review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives not later than April 1, 2015.
Logistics and Sustainment Issues
Army Workload and Performance System
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently issued
a report criticizing the Army's management of the Army Workload
and Performance System (AWPS), the Army manpower requirements
determination tool, and related matters. Remarkably, the Army
failed to provide any responses to GAO's findings. This report
noted that the Army failed to submit annual progress reports
regarding implementation of AWPS master plan or catalog any
revisions of the master plan to Congress as required by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public
Law 107-107). The initial master plans submitted to the
committee were responsive and compelling and evidenced high-
level interest within the Department of the Army. As a result,
the committee concluded from those early reports and system
demonstrations that the Army was serious about installing time,
workload, and performance management systems across the Army
infrastructure for all categories of labor, including logistics
and sustainment.
While the committee commends the Secretary of the Army for
his recently released responses concerning the GAO report on
AWPS and its coverage of important segments of the issues, the
committee concludes that the Army's failure to comply with the
directives in Public Law 107-107 requires a re-evaluation of
how to complete this departmental task. The committee
recommends that a high-priority Secretariat-level project
office and reporting structure be established with sufficient
authority to implement the original, responsive master plan and
its revisions. Further, the Secretary should affix
responsibility for an inclusive, annual master plan
implementation reporting process.
The committee expects the Government Accountability Office,
as required by law, to evaluate the master plan and report to
Congress on the Army's progress. As stated in previous
committee reports (as well as Army reports), evaluation should
include not only implementation throughout Army commands and
infrastructure, but also assess whether budget submissions are
supported by this data. In the committee report (H. Rept 104-
131) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public 104-106), the committee noted that the
evaluation should include corporate-level systems and
integration. Additionally, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States, as part of this
ongoing work, to examine and report to the House Committee on
Armed Services on how the workload and manpower data provided
through the AWPS system could improve reporting and
transparency for 50/50 workload reporting, including all
maintenance activity in acquisition organizations, as well as
Army Materiel Command.
Auditability of Data Used to Measure Depot Maintenance Workload
Distribution
The committee has become aware that, apart from the Army,
the military departments have not involved their audit agencies
in validating the data submitted for incorporation into the
annual report to Congress required by section 2466 of title 10,
United States Code, also known as the ``50/50 report,'' for
several years. The committee is troubled by the finding that in
the limited number of cases where auditors have been involved
in reviewing these data, they identified significant errors.
The committee is also aware that in some instances, the data
included for submission related to depot-level workloads
performed under contractor logistics support, interim
contractor support, or other contractual arrangements are
generated through the use of algorithms or other forms of cost
estimation. In some cases, these estimates appear to have been
generated using insufficiently rigorous methodologies.
These findings lead the committee to conclude the fidelity
of the data supporting the annual ``50/50 report'' is
questionable and could be distorting the true distribution of
workload between the public and private sectors, reducing the
committee's confidence in the report's accuracy and
completeness, as well as inhibiting the military services from
making fully informed decisions regarding source of repair in
the context of section 2466 of title 10, United States Code.
The January 14, 2014, guidance titled ``Reporting Guidance
for the FY2013-2015 Report to Congress on the Distribution of
Department of Defense Depot Maintenance Workloads,'' issued by
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel
Readiness, states that ``Military departments and Agencies
shall obtain the assistance of internal audit agencies or an
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)-agreed upon third
party to conduct detailed reviews to validate the process for
capturing depot maintenance expenditure data by reporting
organizations.'' The committee notes that this reporting
guidance reflects a change from prior guidance, which did not
include process validation, only data validation prior to OSD
submission. In the committee's view, it is imperative that the
data submitted to the Congress be validated. Moreover, the
committee believes that participation of the military
departments' audit agencies in validating the data submitted
for the ``50/50 report'' will provide the greatest assurance
that what is reported represents an accurate and complete
picture of the distribution of depot-level workload between the
public and private sectors.
Accordingly, the committee directs the military departments
and defense agencies to comply with the guidance to the fullest
extent, and, to the degree that it is practicable, ensure
direct military department audit agency involvement in this
effort. Specifically, this effort should provide assurance that
the data submitted for inclusion in the ``50/50 report'' is
accurate and complete. The Secretary of Defense, in the next
two annual reports to Congress required under section 2466 of
title 10, United States Code, should include a description of
the efforts made by each of the military departments and
defense agencies to comply with the validation requirement. The
committee notes that if voluntary compliance is not evidenced,
the committee will consider statutory enforcement.
Comptroller General Review of Forward Deployed Naval Forces and
Associated Sustainment Issues
Forward presence is critical to the Navy's goals of
building partnerships, deterring aggression without escalation,
defusing threats, and containing conflict without regional
disruption. Naval forces provide forward presence through a
combination of rotational deployments from the United States,
Forward Deployed Naval Forces (FDNF) in Japan, Guam, the
Kingdom of Spain, and the Italian Republic, and forward
stationing ships in places such as the Kingdom of Bahrain, the
Republic of Singapore, and Diego Garcia. The Navy's ability to
implement these concepts depends on U.S. bases and strategic
partnerships overseas that provide places where forces can
rest, repair, refuel, and resupply. In the FDNF construct, the
ships, crews and families all reside in the host nation. This
construct is in contrast to forward stationing, where the
ship's families reside in the United States and the crew
rotates to the ship's overseas location for deployment.
The committee seeks a more detailed understanding of the
Navy's decision-making process to designate ships to be either
FDNF or forward stationed and the relative costs and benefits
of each approach. The committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees by February 27, 2015. The report should
include a review and analysis of:
(1) The Navy's process for determining the homeport
locations of naval vessels, including FDNF;
(2) The Navy's process for stationing naval vessels outside
the United States;
(3) How the Navy calculates deployment costs of vessels
homeported inside and outside the United States;
(4) The extent to which the Navy has utilized rotational
crewing to meet forward presence requirements;
(5) The operational availability achieved by rotational
crewing, the savings achieved, and the limitations associated
with directed rotational crewing;
(6) The operational support and sustainment effects of
deploying U.S.-based vessels to a forward operating station as
opposed to homeporting vessels outside the United States,
including costs of complying with section 7310 of title 10,
United States Code, maintenance requirements;
(7) The infrastructure requirements, as well as host-nation
acceptance requirements to ensure the assets are received
overseas; and
(8) Any other issue that the Comptroller General determines
appropriate.
Department of Defense Inspector General Determination of Fair and
Reasonable Cost of Spare Parts
The committee has received testimony that sustainment of
military equipment is the most expensive phase of the
Department of Defense's acquisition process. The committee is
alarmed by frequent reports from the Department of Defense
Inspector General (DODIG) and the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) that the Department has paid hundreds of millions
of dollars above what are considered fair and reasonable prices
for weapon system spare parts and is missing opportunities for
significant savings.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Department of
Defense Inspector General to perform a comprehensive audit to
determine if current Department of Defense guidance is
sufficient to obtain fair and reasonable prices for equipment
spare parts. The audit should assess the extent to which the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and the military departments
have put in place metrics for measuring:
(1) Guidance and efforts to improve demand forecasting are
effective for ensuring appropriate and adequate provision of
spare parts and other supplies needed to keep military
equipment ready and operating; and
(2) Inventory management cost efficiency.
The DODIG should also assess the costs the Department of
Defense has incurred by paying prices beyond what is fair and
reasonable for spare parts and other supplies. The DODIG's
audit should assess the prevalence of disparities between
prices deemed to be fair and reasonable and those prices paid
by the DLA and the military departments for spare parts or
supplies, and potential cost savings if the parts or other
supplies had been obtained by DLA and the military departments
instead of through a performance-based logistics support
contract. The DODIG should provide a report on the results of
the audit to the congressional defense committees not later
than February 28, 2015.
Eligibility and Performance of Carriers Who Transport Hazardous
Materials for the Department of Defense
The Department of Defense every year facilitates nearly
70,000 separate shipments of security sensitive material.
Trucks carrying these shipments travel tens of thousands of
miles on U.S. interstates, highways, and local thoroughfares
across all 50 States. Materials that are transported include
missiles, arms/weapons, ammunition, explosives, radioactive
material, and classified items. Shipments are executed under
the Transportation Protective Services (TPS) program which
requires stringent safety and security standards for operators
who are licensed to do business with the program.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a
comprehensive review of the policies and procedures used by the
Department of Defense in the handling of hazardous material
shipments pursuant to section 363 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). In
its report to the committee, the GAO stated that the Safety
Measurement System scores used by the Department to determine
safety performance of its TPS carriers ``should not be used to
draw safety conclusions about a carrier's safety condition. As
a result, the Department may not be using the most reliable
data from the Compliance, Safety, Accountability's Safety
Measurement System to determine which carriers should be
eligible for the [TPS] program.''
As a result of this finding, and to ensure the safety and
security of Department of Defense's shipments of sensitive
arms, ammunition, and explosives, the committee directs the
Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, to examine the data
limitations of the Department of Transportation Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration's Safety and Accountability
program and report to the House Armed Services Committee by
December 15, 2014, on what changes, if any, should be made to
the process used by the Department of Defense to determine
hazardous material carrier eligibility and evaluate performance
of carriers within the TPS program. Additionally, the
Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, is directed to provide
a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee by September
30, 2015, on the progress made to implement the changes.
F117 Engine Sustainment Strategy
The budget request contained $778.0 million for F117 engine
maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) activities.
The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force
has struggled to reign in F117 engine MRO costs. The committee
is concerned that the Secretary of the Air Force cannot
sufficiently determine whether the Department is paying a fair
and reasonable cost for F117 MRO because of limited performance
and cost data available to the Department as a result of the
F117 MRO contract structure and administration. As a result,
the committee encouraged the Air Force to seek a competitive
strategy for F117 MRO, specifically competition for repair,
overhaul, supply chain management, and systems engineering
support activities. The Air Force determined that prospective
vendors had the potential to use commercial data to derive F117
rates and factors, and that vendors illustrated avenues to
procure parts from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of
the F117 engine. Furthermore, the F117 engine is 91 percent
similar in design to the PW2000 commercial engine, and the
PW2000/F117 manuals are similar for overhaul and component
repair.
In fall 2013, the Air Force attempted competition through
issuance of a request for proposals but subsequently determined
that proposals received were deemed not viable due to proposed
costs. In performing a root-cause analysis, the Department
determined that immediate competition was not possible because
supply chain management competition was not feasible, vendors
would need 3 to 5 years of F117 engine usage data, and engine
OEMs have become increasingly more involved in after-market
sales by offering life-cycle support programs.
The committee notes that the Air Force plans to consider an
alternative MRO strategy that has the potential to reduce
sustainment costs of the F117 engine, but the committee remains
concerned that the Air Force may be limited in determining
whether F117 sustainment costs are fair and reasonable as
compared to commercial-derivative PW2000 engine MRO costs being
borne in the private sector.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the
Air Force to continue pursuit of an F117 MRO sustainment
strategy that will achieve measurable cost reduction and
sufficient insight to OEM sustainment data and metrics in order
to determine cost fairness and reasonableness of the F117
sustainment program execution. The committee also encourages
the Secretary of the Air Force to re-evaluate the necessity for
contracting with the prime system vendor for F117 MRO
activities to determine whether process and cost efficiencies
could be gained by contracting directly with the F117 OEM. The
committee also includes a provision elsewhere in this act that
would prohibit the F117 Milestone Decision Authority from
approving entry into subsequent F117 sustainment contracts
without the required MRO data that provide the Secretary of the
Air Force sufficient insight to determine whether the Secretary
is outlaying fair and reasonable costs to own and operate the
F117 engine as compared to commercial-derivative PW2000
ownership MRO costs in the private sector.
Manufacturing Infrastructure Investment
The committee is aware of the unique challenges and varied
relationships associated with the broad range of customers who
have for decades supported the continued combat vehicle
production capability at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center
(JSMC). As a government-owned, contractor-operated facility,
JSMC represents a unique, long-term fiscal challenge for the
U.S. Army for the continued maintenance and periodic upgrade of
the facility, which has a deferred maintenance and repair
projects list totaling over $40.0 million. Production Base
Support funding over the past several years has been
insufficient to support minimum JSMC maintenance requirements,
including correcting critical safety and environmental
deficiencies.
The Department of the Army must ensure the facility is
properly resourced to efficiently and effectively meet the
Army's tank and other combat vehicle production-related
requirements, Foreign Military Sales (FMS), and Direct
Commercial Sales for the foreseeable future. The committee
understands the difficulty in determining how the Department
should share the operational support costs associated with the
JSMC across the broad range of current and future customers.
For example, future FMS programs could generate more than $10.0
million in facilities usage fees. The committee believes
reinvestment of these funds could help remediate facilities
maintenance deficiencies and subsequently benefit all current
and future JSMC customers.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services not later than
February 9, 2015, on the Army's analysis, plans, and/or
recommendations, to include potential legislative proposals, on
how the operational costs associated with the Joint Systems
Manufacturing Center could be equitably applied so that the
facility can remain viable and relevant.
Public-Private Partnerships at Centers of Industrial and Technical
Excellence
The committee recognizes the mutual benefits to both the
organic and commercial industrial base of partnering activities
especially in a resource-constrained environment. The committee
also believes that full visibility into the scope and scale of
partnerships is critical for proper oversight of industrial
base sustainment. As a result, the committee is concerned about
the lack of visibility into the Department of Defense's public-
private partnership activities authorized by section 2474 of
title 10, United States Code. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to deliver to the congressional defense
committees by January 5, 2015, a report on all partnerships
entered into pursuant to section 2474 of title 10, United
States Code, in fiscal year 2014 and for the preceding three
fiscal years. The report at a minimum should include the
location of work performed under the partnership, the
commercial and organic entities comprising the partnership, the
length of the partnership, and a description of the work
performed by the partnership.
Report on the Department of Defense's Transportation of Hazardous
Materials
The Department of Defense transports more than 1.5 million
hazardous material (HAZMAT) shipments each year. These
shipments can be high-risk as well as highly sensitive and, if
improperly handled, labeled, or packaged could result in the
loss of life, property damage, and harm to national security
interests. A complex framework of statutes and regulations
governs the Department's handling, labeling, and packaging of
hazardous material shipments. The Government Accountability
Office (GAO) recently reported on challenges the Department has
experienced in implementing these regulations, which can
adversely affect the safe, timely, and cost-effective
transportation of hazardous materials. For example, in some
cases Department of Defense installations did not provide
carriers transporting sensitive arms, ammunition and explosives
hazardous materials with timely access to secure hold areas or
assist them in locating the nearest alternate means to secure
those shipments, leaving these items in the public domain
longer than necessary. Accordingly, the committee encourages
the Department to develop a process to identify and implement
the necessary corrective actions to ensure that its
installations provide secure hold as required. Additionally,
GAO found a substantial number of hazardous material shipments
were not documented and packaged in accordance with regulations
and other guidance, which resulted in delays. The committee is
concerned about costs (and potential operational impacts) that
may be incurred by the Department as a result of these delays
or whether any materials were unnecessarily shipped through the
more expensive Transportation Protective Services program
because they were improperly identified as sensitive items.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2014,
on the Department of Defense's transportation of hazardous
materials. That report should also be provided to the
Comptroller General of the United States at that time.
Specifically, the report should include, but is not limited to,
a discussion of:
(1) The root causes of improper documentation and packaging
of HAZMAT throughout the Department of Defense transportation
system;
(2) The extent to which Transportation Protective Services
are being used to transport HAZMAT shipments that could safely
and securely be transported using less costly means;
(3) Any needed corrective actions and an action plan with
associated milestones to implement those corrective actions.
After the Secretary provides the report to Congress, the
Comptroller General of the United States should conduct a
review of the report and provide a preliminary briefing to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by March 15, 2015, with a final report or
reports to follow within 120 days.
Report on the Eligibility and Performance of Carriers Who Transport
Security-Sensitive Materials for the Department of Defense
The Department of Defense every year facilitates nearly
70,000 separate shipments of security sensitive material.
Trucks carrying these shipments travel millions of miles on
U.S. interstates, highways, and local thoroughfares across all
50 States. Examples of materials that are transported include
missiles, arms/weapons, ammunition, explosives, radioactive
material, and classified items. These shipments are executed
under the Transportation Protective Services (TPS) program
which requires stringent safety and security standards for
operators who are approved to do business with the program.
However, a comprehensive study of the necessary safety
standards, technology, and public liability of carriers in the
TPS program has not been conducted.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide a report to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
December 15, 2014. That report should include, but is not
limited to, the following:
(1) An assessment of whether there is sufficient data in
the Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's Compliance, Safety, and Accountability program
to evaluate carrier safety performance and what additional data
may be necessary;
(2) A determination of what additional standards should
apply to the process used by the Department of Defense to
decide Transportation Protective Services carrier eligibility
and evaluate performance of the TPS program;
(3) An assessment of whether proven safety technologies
recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board (e.g.,
roll stability control systems, forward collision warning
systems, electronic logging devices) should be mandated for
trucks transporting TPS shipments in order to reduce the risk
of a catastrophic accident or damage to materials;
(4) An assessment of whether minimum public liability and
property damage insurance should be increased for TPS carriers;
and
(5) An assessment of whether TPS carriers need to staff 24
hour call centers to monitor operations and assist in
emergencies.
Submarine Propeller Repair and Overhaul
The committee understands the Navy continues to request
partial funding to support submarine propeller repair and
overhaul (SPRO) in the Overseas Contingency Operations account,
rather than planning for full funding based on true historical
and current year SPRO expenditures within the Navy's annual
defense budget. Additionally, the committee remains concerned
with the Navy's ongoing proposed ``repair only'' approach to
SPRO. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to re-
evaluate this plan and report to the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives by December 15, 2014,
on an approach, to include both fiscal year 2015 and Future
Years Defense Program funding, that addresses the ongoing mix
of both propeller repair and overhaul needs.
Sustainment of Deployed Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense
The committee commends the Department of Defense for its
rapid and successful deployment of an Army Air and Missile
Defense Task Force (AMDTF) and Terminal High-Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) missile defense battery to Guam last spring in
response to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's
aggressive posture. The committee notes that Army Chief of
Staff, General Raymond Odierno, in testimony before the
committee, stated that the Army is working on plans to sustain
a long-term presence of a THAAD battery and an AMDTF on Guam to
provide necessary protection of military manpower, assets, and
civilians. In order to better understand the requirements to
sustain an AMDTF and THAAD battery on Guam, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to report to the committee
by January 31, 2015, on the following requirements related to
THAAD sustainment:
(1) An accounting of force structure needed, including
potential Army National Guard or Army Reserve force structure;
(2) Potential military construction needed for force
protection and other sustainment issues;
(3) Estimated military personnel and operation and
maintenance costs; and
(4) Any legal, statutory, or authority challenges
associated with sustaining an AMDTF and THAAD battery on Guam.
Readiness Issues
Adequacy of Airlift and Refueling Capabilities in the Western Pacific
Recognizing the strategic importance of the Department of
Defense's efforts to rebalance forces to the Asia-Pacific
region, the committee continues to question the adequacy of
airlift and refueling capabilities in that region. U.S. Pacific
Command (PACOM) must accomplish a variety of missions and
requirements in a geographic area of responsibility that spans
almost 9,000 miles from Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean to the
Republic of Maldives in the Indian Ocean. Airlift and refueling
capabilities play a critical role in supporting and sustaining
forward-deployed forces in the Asia-Pacific region.
The committee is concerned about the ability of the U.S.
Air Force to provide sustained airlift to support ground forces
and equipment in the region to meet current and emerging
requirements. Particularly, the committee is concerned about
the cost of the current rotational tanker presence in the
western Pacific. Given current budget constraints and the risk
in the readiness accounts, the committee is concerned that
rotational presence may not be the most fiscally prudent means
of meeting airlift and refueling requirements, especially in
light of the potential for sustained sequestration. The
committee, therefore, directs the Commander, U.S. Pacific
Command, in consultation with the Commander, Pacific Air
Forces, to brief the committee by March 30, 2015, on airlift
and tanker capabilities in the Pacific Command area of
responsibility. At a minimum, the briefing should include:
(1) The cost of current rotational tanker presence in the
western Pacific;
(2) The cost of permanently stationing tankers in the
western Pacific to meet current operational requirements; and
(3) Plans for future beddown of permanent and rotational
airlift and tanker assets in the western Pacific to meet
Pacific Command operational requirements.
Advanced Situational Awareness Training Assessment
The committee is aware that the Army continues to
successfully incorporate training modules to detect changes in
human behavior through Advanced Situational Awareness Training
(ASAT). The committee recognizes the benefits of such training
and the enhancement to mission effectiveness, decisive
advantage, enhanced use of existing optical equipment, and
reduction of civilian casualties that it can help provide. The
committee believes the benefits of situational awareness
training are significant enough to warrant a long-term
assessment of ASAT training requirements and a plan for
possible future institutionalization.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct
an assessment of ASAT training and brief the House Committee on
Armed Services on the results not later than October 1, 2014.
This assessment and briefing should specifically include
current ASAT training requirements, the cost and time required
to institutionalize an ASAT training program across the Army,
and quantifiable training benefits achieved by ASAT training to
date.
Army Aviation Range Safety Improvements
The committee is concerned that low-altitude radar coverage
deficiencies at Army aviation training ranges are creating
undue risk. These aviation safety hazards contributed to a mid-
air collision in December 2011, resulting in the loss of all
crew members. The committee commends the Army for working to
mitigate this risk with the installation of wide-area
multilateration systems. Multilateration systems provide
improved situational awareness in all weather conditions, are
highly scalable, more affordable than traditional radars, have
been proven in commercial aviation, and provide accurate
tracking and data capture for training operations and after-
action reports. Multilateration systems are capable of
precision surveillance and identification of all transponder-
equipped aircraft at all altitudes.
The committee encourages the Army to continue fielding
wide-area multilateration systems on its training ranges to
provide aviators with realistic operational scenarios and to
enhance safety for aviators and civilians who live in proximity
to military training areas.
Army Aviation Training
The committee notes the continued demand for Army aviation
capabilities on the battlefield and the importance of providing
real-world training to Army aviators throughout the program of
instruction at the Army Aviation Center of Excellence. The
committee recognizes the training, cost, and performance
benefits of instructing Army aviators on aircraft that operate
more similarly to the Army's current fleet of dual-engine,
glass cockpit, four-blade combat helicopters.
Commercially Augmented Tactical Airborne Training
The committee is aware of the historical utilization of
contracted fighter aircraft to enhance and augment training.
The roles of these aircraft range from replicating adversaries
with high-end electronic warfare capabilities, to developing
air battle manager skills, to conducting joint terminal attack
controller training. Using commercially provided assets to
augment airborne tactical training can prolong the service life
of U.S. military aircraft and reduce the number of training
support missions flown by military aviators.
The committee is also aware that additional contracted
tactical training capacity exists and that there may be
potential for additional savings or cost avoidance through the
increased utilization of that capacity. Given the increased
need to maximize efficiencies in training in order to preserve
readiness and assets, the committee encourages the military
departments to utilize, to the maximum extent practical,
commercially provided tactical airborne training augmentation.
Common Range Integrated Instrumentation System
The committee is concerned by the proliferation of more
advanced threats to U.S. Armed Forces and the lack of more
advanced instrumentation to support aviation combat training.
These increasingly complex weapons threats require equally
complex next-generation capabilities that can provide realistic
training while at the same time reducing cost of current
``live-fly'' exercises. The Common Range Integrated
Instrumentation System has demonstrated critical attributes
including: an integrated multi-level security that will enable
seamless communications between legacy and next-generation
aircraft as well as between U.S. and coalition forces; flexible
architectures that enable live, virtual constructive training
capability; and a network architecture that is deployable, both
ashore and at sea. Accordingly, the committee encourages the
Department of Defense to make maximum reuse of mature,
scalable, and secure technologies developed for the test range
community when considering their applicability and
affordability for military training ranges.
Comptroller General Report on Readiness Metrics
For decades the Department of Defense has used ``C-
ratings,'' which measure unit resources and training against
doctrinal wartime missions, to measure the readiness of its
forces. However, to support the recent missions in the Republic
of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, units have
repeatedly been reconfigured and task-organized or called upon
to execute missions that differed from their core doctrinal
mission statements. To better portray readiness in this new
environment, the Department has added ``assigned mission'' and
``capability'' ratings to its traditional C-ratings. The
military departments and combatant commands also began
reporting readiness assessment levels (RA-levels) to portray
their strategic readiness. While the combination of traditional
and newer readiness metrics have allowed the Department to
portray its readiness for a much wider range of missions than
in the past, the metrics do not fully account for the time
component of readiness. Traditional C-ratings and assigned
mission ratings tend to emphasize readiness at a particular
point in time (the day the rating is completed). Capability and
RA-ratings have an implicit time component because they measure
readiness against timelines that are laid out in operations and
contingency plans. However, the committee has observed that
none of the metrics clearly answer the question of when forces
will be ready. Over the past decade, when the committee has
asked that question, the ubiquitous response has been that most
units will be ready ``just in time.''
With the prolonged growth of non-discretionary spending
placing continued fiscal pressure on the defense budget, the
``just-in-time'' answer does little to help decisionmakers
minimize risk while preparing for a future that, in the words
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is ``dangerous
and uncertain.'' Because units from different military
departments can often provide similar, if not identical,
capabilities, the committee believes the Department's
leadership and the Congress need to understand differences in
both the speed and cost at which the military departments can
provide ready forces to meet combatant commander requirements
so they can prioritize resources and minimize risk.
To help inform the committee's oversight and its
consideration of the President's budget request, the committee
directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review
the Department of Defense's readiness. The review should
include, but not be limited to:
(1) The current readiness of the military departments and
combatant commands, as reported in their December 2013
readiness reports;
(2) A description of the key factors that are affecting the
readiness of the military departments and the combatant
commands, as well as a description of the steps being taken to
address or mitigate the impact of those factors;
(3) An analysis of the extent to which ``time'' is or has
been incorporated as a quantitative or qualitative component of
current and past readiness metrics: and
(4) A description of any efforts the military departments,
the combatant commands, the Joint Staff, or the Office of the
Secretary of Defense have made to modify their readiness
metrics or add any additional metrics to better address the
question of when units or commands will be ready.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
preliminary briefing on these four elements to the
congressional defense committees by February 15, 2015, with a
report or reports to follow.
Other Matters
Arctic Center of Excellence
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy
released its Arctic Roadmap for 2014-2030, which provides near-
term, mid-term, and far-term direction to enhance the Navy's
ability to operate in the Arctic region. The committee notes
the roadmap includes an implementation plan that provides a
timeline and identifies organizations to lead specific actions
recommended by the roadmap. One of these actions includes
identifying requirements in fiscal year 2015 to establish an
Arctic Center of Excellence, as well as developing an Arctic
engagement plan focusing on partnerships with international,
interagency and private sector stakeholders that enhance
security. The committee believes that the establishment of such
a center would support the Navy's focus areas identified in the
roadmap. In developing the requirements for such a center, the
committee encourages the Department to consider, among other
things, how such a center could support Arctic-related
training, operations, maritime domain awareness, scientific
research, and technology development. When considering
potential locations the Department should consider candidates
that can effectively bring together elements from the
Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security,
academia, and other public and private stakeholders who can
contribute to advancing U.S. interests in the Arctic.
Army Combat Shirt Fielding Strategy
The committee notes the Army Combat Shirt (ACS) is a field-
tested and Army-authorized combat shirt approved for combat
operations. The ACS is worn, in most cases, as the base layer
for the Army's interceptor body armor system, and provides
soldiers with a highly breathable, moisture wicking clothing
option with a flame resistance capability.
The committee commends the Army's efforts to develop and
field high performance flame resistant clothing to deploying
soldiers through the rapid fielding initiative. The committee
also notes that the ACS remains coded for wartime use only. The
committee believes the same high performance and flame
resistant protection capabilities provided by the ACS in combat
operations could also be applied for domestic training and
field exercises in the United States.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in
consultation with the Chief of Staff of the Army, to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1,
2014, on steps being taken to evaluate the ACS and other flame
resistant combat uniforms items to describe (a) the near-term
policy for authorizing use in appropriate field exercises and
training scenarios at unit commander's discretion; and (b) the
advisability and feasibility of implementing a long-term
fielding plan for incorporating the ACS and other flame
resistant combat uniforms as organizational equipment in
appropriate units and in sizes and designs specific to female
soldiers.
Briefing on Invasive Species Management
The committee notes that in the fall of 2013, the coconut
rhinoceros beetle, an invasive species to the Hawaiian Islands
and Guam, was discovered on the island of Oahu and has been
found on Guam since 2007. While it is unknown how the species
came to Hawaii or Guam, the committee is aware that a coconut
rhinoceros beetle population was identified on Joint Base Pearl
Harbor-Hickam, which is in close proximity to Honolulu
International Airport. Since discovering the existence of this
invasive species on Hawaii, the committee notes that the
Department of Agriculture has been leading the effort, jointly
with the Department of Defense and appropriate State agencies,
to eliminate breeding sites, and monitor and control the spread
of the coconut rhinoceros beetle on the island of Oahu.
In addition to the more immediate response, the committee
notes that the Department of Defense is already addressing
invasive species through other mechanisms. Specifically, the
Department of the Navy is supporting efforts to develop the
Micronesian Biosecurity Plan, jointly with the Department of
Agriculture, and the governments of the State of Hawaii, Guam,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic
of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic
of the Marshall Islands. In preparing the plan, the partners
evaluated invasive species risks to marine, terrestrial, and
freshwater ecosystems, to include the coconut rhinoceros
beetle. Additionally, for invasive species management, the
committee notes that Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam and Joint
Region Marianas maintain an Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan which includes measures to prevent the
proliferation of invasive species.
The committee encourages the Department of the Navy to
continue its work with the Department of Agriculture, as well
as State and local entities, to monitor and contain any further
spread of the coconut rhinoceros beetle within Hawaii and Guam.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a
briefing to the committee not later than September 1, 2014,
regarding the status of the coconut rhinoceros beetle on Joint
Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam and Joint Region Marianas and steps
the Department of the Navy has taken, working with partners, to
control, mitigate, or eradicate the species or its habitat.
Cold-Weather Protective Clothing
The committee is concerned that the use of end-of-year
funding for the acquisition of cold-weather clothing, glove
systems, and equipment for training, and for cold-weather
combat negatively affect military readiness and the defense
industrial base. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not
later than September 30, 2014, a report describing the
Department's efforts to provide the Active and Reserve
Components with the cold-weather clothing, glove systems, and
equipment required for training and deployments. The committee
directs the Secretary to include in the report an update on the
funding needed to meet Active and Reserve Component
requirements for cold-weather clothing, glove systems, and
equipment in fiscal years 2015 and 2016. The report should also
include an acquisition strategy and spending plan outlining the
projected schedule for the obligation of funds to acquire the
necessary equipment.
Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense's Arctic
Capabilities
In its 2012 report on Arctic capabilities, the Government
Accountability Office noted that while the Department of
Defense has undertaken some efforts to assess the capabilities
needed to meet national security objectives in the Arctic, it
is unclear whether the Department will be in a position to
provide needed capabilities in a timely and efficient manner.
Pursuant to the recommendations in that GAO report that the
Department of Defense develop a risk-based investment strategy
and collaborate with other interagency stakeholders to identify
longer term needs, the Department published an Arctic Strategy
in November 2013. In that strategy, the Department identified a
number of investments that will need to be made over time while
noting the risk that investments in Arctic capabilities may not
compete successfully against other priorities. Therefore, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to provide to the congressional defense committees a review
addressing:
(1) The process used by the Department of Defense to
identify and develop the capabilities required for the Arctic
mission to include identifying the supporting force structure,
personnel, training, equipment, and infrastructure;
(2) The extent to which the Department has identified any
capability gaps; and developed mitigation plans and timelines
to address those gaps;
(3) How the Department of Defense is collaborating with
other agencies such as the Coast Guard to identify and address
longer-term needs in the Arctic; and
(4) Any additional information the Comptroller General
deems appropriate in the context of that review.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
preliminary briefing to the House Armed Services Committee on
the review by February 6, 2015 with a report to follow within
90 days.
Comptroller General Review of Process for the Disposition of Excess
Defense Articles
The Department of Defense is a large provider of surplus
personal property and equipment that goes to local governments,
fire and police departments, Veterans Service Organizations,
hospitals, and many other local entities. The transfer of
surplus personal property and equipment to other Federal
agencies and local and State governments by the Department
provides a significant savings of American taxpayer dollars. As
budgetary resources continue to shrink, it is imperative that
American tax dollars are well spent and managed and re-
utilization within the Department of Defense is maximized.
Furthermore, it is important that any surplus personal property
and equipment that is being sold through the Department of
Defense surplus property sales program is done in accordance
with laws relating to the disposition of excess and surplus
property. As surplus personal property and equipment become
more valuable, the Department of Defense and the Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) should have procedures and protocols to
ensure that fair market value for surplus personal property and
equipment is being received. If the Department is not receiving
fair market value for surplus personal property and equipment
being sold, this could be a serious financial loss to the
American taxpayer.
To ensure that the taxpayer is getting the greatest
financial benefit out of surplus equipment originally purchased
with tax dollars, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to review and report to the congressional
defense committees on the Department of Defense's and the
Defense Logistics Agency's excess and surplus personal property
programs, including their programs that provide excess or
surplus personal property and equipment to other Federal
agencies and to local and State governments and on their
programs that sell surplus personal property and equipment. The
review should include, but not be limited to, an examination
of:
(1) The methods DLA uses to provide visibility of available
excess property and equipment to interested agencies and
provide access for physical inspection of the property and
equipment;
(2) Instances in which Department of Defense property and
equipment that have been declared excess, and that are
desirable for use by other Federal agencies and by State or
local governments, are transferred to a commercial vendor for
sale;
(3) The process DLA uses to code property and equipment for
disposition, particularly instances in which property and
equipment that have been coded for return to military units are
transferred to a commercial vendor for sale; and
(4) The costs that DLA incurs by destroying appropriately
coded property and equipment that otherwise could be
demilitarized and made available to interested Federal agencies
or State and local governments.
(5) Instances where the Department did not receive fair
market value for excess or surplus personal property and
equipment transferred to a commercial vendor for sale.
The Comptroller General should provide a preliminary
briefing to the congressional defense committees by March 15,
2015, with a final report or reports to follow.
Office of Net Assessment
The budget request contained $8.9 million within Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the Office of the Secretary
of Defense for the Office of Net Assessment (ONA).
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
continues to decrement the proposed funding for the office. The
committee is concerned that this decrement, in conjunction with
the Secretary of Defense's plan to realign the office under the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, may limit
the ability and flexibility of ONA to conduct long-range
comparative assessments. The office has a long history of
providing alternative analyses and strategies that challenge
the ``group think'' that can often pervade the Department of
Defense. The committee believes that the growing array of
complex security challenges facing the United States, as
highlighted in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, coupled
with a constrained budget environment, will only create greater
demand for the unconventional thinking and solutions that the
Office is capable of providing.
One such challenge is in the area of space deterrence, and
elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that
would require the office to conduct a study of potential
alternate defense and deterrent strategies in response to the
existing and projected counterspace capabilities of the
People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation.
The committee therefore recommends $18.9 million, an
increase of $10.0 million, for fiscal year 2015 for the Office
of Net Assessment. This recommended authorization is reflected
in a new funding line for the Office of Net Assessment within
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, as shown in section
4301 of this Act.
Also, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a
provision that would codify the Office within chapter 4 of
title 10, United States Code, and establish a dedicated program
element for budgeting purposes. The committee believes the
office must remain an independent organization within the
Department reporting directly to the Secretary. However, the
committee also recognizes that improvements can be made within
the Department to ensure the office's assessments better inform
and influence its overall strategy and policy. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
House Committee on Armed Services, not later than September 5,
2014, a plan for how the Department can better leverage the
Office as well as a description of the activities,
deliverables, and allocation of funds planned for the Office of
Net Assessment for fiscal year 2015.
Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers
The budget request contained $3.6 million for the Concept
Development, Study and Planning for Future Regional Special
Operations Forces Coordination Centers (RSCC) within Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide.
The committee notes that this request is unwarranted and
ahead of need given the statutory limitation on the
establishment of an RSCC or similar entity by U.S. Special
Operations Command within a regional geographic combatant
commander's (GCC) area of responsibility, in accordance with
section 1244 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). The committee also notes
that section 1244 of Public Law 113-66 required that the
Secretary of Defense submit a report to certain congressional
committees within 180 days after the date of enactment of
Public Law 113-66, outlining RSCC requirements and anticipated
legislative authorities that may be needed to support such
requirements. The committee notes with concern that this report
has yet to be delivered. The committee furthermore believes
that any RSCC-like initiatives or requirements should be put
forth by regional GCCs to ensure such initiatives are linked
comprehensively to all regional plans, requirements, and
activities. The committee therefore denies the requested amount
of $3.6 million for the Concept Development, Study and Planning
for Future Regional Special Operations Forces Coordination
Centers and redirects this funding to more direct operational
readiness requirements within Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-wide, for the Flying Hours Program for U.S. Special
Operations Command. Furthermore, the committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to provide the report as mandated in
Public Law 113-66.
Report on Emerging Technologies for Flame Resistant Uniforms
The military services currently have validated requirements
for flame-resistant uniforms for personnel in specific military
occupational specialties and for personnel deploying to hostile
environments. The committee believes the current flame-
resistant requirements are appropriate and not in need of
modification. However, the committee is concerned that the
military services are not adequately exploring emerging flame-
resistant capabilities and technology that may allow the
services to expand protection to additional service members at
a reduced cost.
The committee notes that the high material costs associated
with flame-resistant uniforms and accessories have historically
limited the distribution of such uniforms to military units
that are preparing to deploy, are currently deployed, and to
those serving in certain military occupational specialties. The
committee understands that service members in such units
require flame-resistant uniforms because of the high risk of
burn injury posed by the contemporary operational environment.
While the committee understands that these service members have
an increased risk of sustaining a burn injury, the committee
believes that other service members in training and domestic
operations are also at-risk of sustaining burn-related
injuries. The committee is concerned that flame-resistant
uniforms are not available to these service members due to the
cost-prohibitive nature of the current uniforms.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a study on emerging flame-resistant technologies and
evaluate whether these technologies can provide cost-effective
protection to a wider range of service members. The secretary
shall report the findings of the assessment to the
congressional defense committees within 180 days after the
enactment of this Act.
Training, Travel, and Conference Restrictions
The committee commends the Department of Defense for its
efforts to reduce unnecessary expenses. However, the committee
remains concerned that the Department will exclude strategic
locations in its efforts to curtail training, travel, and
conference costs. The committee encourages the Department to
take appropriate action to reduce costs and recommends the
Department not exclude specific geographical areas for
training, travel, and conferences, including those critical to
our national security strategy or those aligned with the
Department's strategic guidance.
U.S. Special Operations Command National Capital Region Office
The budget request contained $5.0 million for the U.S.
Special Operations Command National Capital Region (USSOCOM-
NCR) office within Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide.
The committee notes that this funding would have provided
for an additional USSOCOM Washington, DC-based coordination
office. The committee understands, however, that based on
further analysis, USSOCOM has discontinued efforts to develop
and implement its concept for the USSOCOM-NCR office, and that
the Secretary of Defense has endorsed this decision. The
committee further understands that USSOCOM will continue to
maintain its USSOCOM Washington office at the Pentagon, and
that it will sustain its current support to the interagency and
planning process.
Therefore, since the USSOCOM-NCR requirement is no longer
valid, the committee denies the requested $5.0 million for the
office and redirects this funding to more direct operational
readiness requirements within Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-wide, Flying Hours Program for U.S. Special Operations
Command.
United States Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force and
Families Program
The budget request included $67.0 million within Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide, to support the U.S. Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM) Preservation of the Force and
Families (POTFF) program. Of this amount, $48.3 million
supports the Human Performance Program (HPP) within POTFF. The
budget request also included $14.8 million within Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, for USSOCOM Behavioral Health and
Warrior Care Management Program through the Defense Health
Program. The committee recognizes the tremendous sacrifices
made by the men and women within the Special Operations Forces
(SOF) and their families after more than 12 years of war. The
committee has always made the care of all service members and
their families its highest priority, including members of SOF.
The committee notes with concern, however, that suicide rates
for SOF have continued to increase since calendar year 2010,
and that for the past 2 years, suicide rates within USSOCOM
have surpassed those of the military services.
The committee understands that most suicide prevention
programs within USSOCOM have focused on training and awareness,
and that USSOCOM is preparing to expand a pilot peer-to-peer
training program. The committee also understands and is
supportive of the many service-provided suicide prevention
programs that USSOCOM has utilized at the component level.
While action taken by USSOCOM has been positive, the committee
is concerned that targeted suicide prevention programs within
the command remain nascent and slow-moving given the troubling
suicide statistics across the forces. The committee notes that
USSOCOM only recently signed and promulgated a force-wide
Suicide Prevention Policy Memorandum dated March 31, 2014, and
that, according to USSOCOM, ``suicide prevention efforts have
been minimal and met as unfunded requirements.''
The committee is also concerned that, given these increased
rates of suicides across the force, the POTFF program lacks a
distinct focus on suicide prevention programs and places too
much costly emphasis on the Human Performance Program geared
towards improving physical readiness with costly military
construction and multi-year service contracts for physical
therapists, strength and conditioning specialists, athletic
trainers, and sports dieticians. The committee notes that these
activities, while related holistically to the well-being and
mental health of SOF, will likely do little to immediately
address the high number of suicides currently impacting the
force. Furthermore, the present POTFF focus on human
performance and physical readiness places an over-reliance on
contracts that are unsustainable and cost-prohibitive across
the Future Years Defense Program, diverting resources otherwise
required to immediately address suicides across the force. The
committee notes that of the $67.0 million requested for POTFF,
only $7.2 million was to support the Psychological Performance
Program to promote, maintain, and restore the psychological and
behavioral health of SOF.
Therefore, of the $67.0 million within Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, to support the USSOCOM Preservation
of the Force and Families program, the committee recommends
$25.0 million to support Human Performance Program, a reduction
of $23.3 million, and $38.1 million to support USSOCOM
Behavioral Health and Warrior Care Management Program, an
increase of $23.3 million. In addition, the committee also
recommends the full amount of $7.2 million for the
Psychological Performance Program within POTFF. Elsewhere in
this Act, the committee includes a provision that would require
a comprehensive review and assessment on prevention of suicides
among members of U.S. Special Operations Forces.
United States Special Operations Command Proposed Sponsorship of U.S.
Naval Ship Sumner
The committee is aware that the United States Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM) recently requested transfer of
sponsorship of the United States Naval Ship (USNS) Sumner (T-
AGS 61) from the Military Sealift Command to USSOCOM to support
near-term maritime requirements for United States Southern
Command. The committee is also aware that USSOCOM has initiated
a new-start procurement using current fiscal year 2014 funds to
begin modifications to USNS Sumner estimated at $8.9 million.
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 included $20.3 million
in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, to further modify
and operate USNS Sumner within the United States Southern
Command area of operations.
The committee is concerned that the proposed transfer of
sponsorship of USNS Sumner to USSOCOM and proposed command and
control relationships are without precedent, and that projected
costs for the current fiscal year and across the Future Years
Defense Program will far exceed current estimates. Further, the
committee has concerns that the requirement is being funded
only by USSOCOM Major Force Program-11 (MFP-11) funds which are
limited by section 167 of title 10, United States Code, to
provide only the incremental funding and acquisition of special
operations-peculiar material, supplies, and services. Since the
committee understands that this platform will be used to also
support the geographic combatant commander theater campaign
plans such as counter-narcotics, humanitarian assistance, and
security force assistance, the committee believes that MFP-11
funding is an inappropriate source for these costly
modifications and operations, and that MFP-11 is being used to
supplant activities that should be provided for by the services
and the geographic combatant commander.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees
by August 1, 2014, on the proposed transfer of the USNS Sumner
from Military Sealift Command to USSOCOM. The briefing at a
minimum should outline:
(1) The validated requirement as defined by the geographic
combatant commander;
(2) Anticipated costs across the Future Years Defense
Program and funding sources;
(3) Reason for the use of USNS Sumner, to include a
business case analysis discussing efficiencies and cost
savings; and
(4) Any other matters the Secretary deems appropriate.
Furthermore, given these concerns, the committee denies the
requested amount of $20.3 million in Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-wide, to further modify and operate USNS Sumner and
redirects this funding to more direct operational readiness
requirements within Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide,
Flying Hours Program for USSOCOM.
Waste Disposal Technologies in Contingency Operations
The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations prohibiting the
disposal of covered waste in open-air burn pits during
contingency operations, except when no alternative disposal
method is feasible. The committee further notes that the Report
to Congress on the Use of Open-Air Burn Pits by the United
States Armed Forces, submitted on May 12, 2010, pursuant to
Public Law 111-84, stated that ``The introduction of
incinerators, plus other thermal (to include waste-to-energy)
and non-thermal waste disposal options, are intended to
eventually displace the use of burn pits.'' The report
concluded, ``DoD must continue to explore viable technical
solutions for waste reduction and waste disposal in all
categories--solid, medical, and hazardous--and then make such
solutions available through easily acquired commercial or DoD
provided equipment.'' To that end, the committee is aware that
the final burn pit that was being operated in Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan in compliance with Department of Defense and
U.S. Central Command policies, as required by Public Law 111-
84, was closed in April 2014. Remaining U.S. locations within
Afghanistan utilize a combination of landfills, incinerators,
and removal of waste by local nationals.
The committee is also aware that the Special Inspector
General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) has observed
problems associated with incinerators that have been installed
in Afghanistan. Such problems include poor construction,
planning and design, and coordination between contracts for
constructing the incinerators and for operating and maintaining
them. The committee understands that the Department of Defense
is assessing commercial incinerator and other waste-disposal
technologies to determine the feasibility for use at bases of
varying size, maturity, and duration. Therefore, the committee
directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics to provide a briefing for the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than March 2, 2015, on
the lessons learned related to waste-disposal methods in
contingency operations and provide an update on the
Department's assessment of waste-disposal technologies, to
include those that would provide an efficient, reliable and
deployable capability that adheres to electrical and
construction standards that ensure life, safety, and health of
U.S. personnel.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding
This section would authorize appropriations for operation
and maintenance activities at the levels identified in section
4301 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions
Section 311--Elimination of Fiscal Year Limitation on Prohibition of
Payment of Fines and Penalties from the Environmental Restoration
Account, Defense
This section would eliminate a sunset date for the
requirement for the Department of Defense to obtain
congressional authorization before paying fines and penalties
under the requirement set forth in section 2703 of title 10,
United States Code. The current requirement for congressional
authorization does not apply to funds authorized to be
appropriated to the Environmental Restoration Account, Defense
after fiscal year 2010. This section would strike any such date
limitation.
Section 312--Biannual Certification by Commanders of the Combatant
Commands Relating to the Prohibition on the Disposal of Waste in Open-
Air Burn Pits
This section would require the combatant commanders to
submit a biannual certification to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives that
covered waste under the jurisdiction of the commander has not
been disposed of in violation of the regulations set forth in
section 317 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). This section also
prescribes additional details required in instances of
noncompliance.
Section 313--Exclusions from Definition of ``Chemical Substance'' Under
Toxic Substances Control Act and Report on Lead Ammunition
This section would modify section 2602(2)(B) of title 15,
United States Code, to add to the exclusions any component of
any article including shot, bullets and other projectiles,
propellants when manufactured for or used in such an article,
and primers. This section would also require the Secretary of
the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than September 30, 2015, that would detail
the costs for the procurement of small arms alternative lead
ammunition and the qualification of non-lead alternatives, and
include an assessment of which non-lead variants of ammunition
exist.
Section 314--Exemption of Department of Defense from Alternative Fuel
Procurement Requirement
This section would amend section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) to
exempt the Department of Defense from the requirements related
to contracts for alternative or synthetic fuel in that section.
Section 315--Congressional Notice of Bulk Purchase of Alternative Fuels
for Operational Use
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
notify the congressional defense committees 60 days before the
bulk purchase of alternative fuels intended for operational
use.
Section 316--Limitation on Procurement of Biofuels
This section would limit the Department of Defense's
ability to purchase or produce biofuels until the earlier of
either the date on which the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public
Law 112-25) is no longer in effect, or the date on which the
cost of biofuel is equal to the cost of conventional fuels.
This section would provide an exception for biofuel test and
certification and research and development.
Section 317--Limitation on Plan, Design, Refurbishing, or Construction
of Biofuels Refineries
This section would require the Department of Defense to
obtain a congressional authorization before entering into a
contract for the planning, design, refurbishing, or
construction of a biofuels refinery.
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment
Section 321--Additional Requirement for Strategic Policy on
Prepositioning of Materiel and Equipment
This section would amend the strategic policy on
prepositioned materiel and equipment required by section
2229(a) of title 10, United States Code, to ensure newly
established crisis response elements are considered when
developing goals, assessing challenges, and synchronizing
requirements.
Section 322--Comptroller General Reports on Department of Defense
Prepositioning Strategic Policy and Plan for Prepositioned Stocks
This section would modify the reporting requirement in
section 321 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to run through 2017, 3
years following the initial report due in 2014, for a total of
four reports over 4 years.
Section 323--Pilot Program on Provision of Logistic Support for the
Conveyance of Excess Defense Articles to Allied Forces
This section would create a 2-year pilot program allowing
the Secretary of Defense to provide logistics support for the
conveyance of excess defense articles to allied forces
participating in bilateral or multilateral training activities
with the Armed Forces of the United States. This authority
would be subject to funding limitations and would expire on
September 30, 2016. The Secretary of Defense would be required
to provide a report on the use of the authority to certain
congressional committees at the end of any calendar year during
which the Secretary carried out the pilot program.
Subtitle D--Reports
Section 331--Repeal of Annual Report on Department of Defense Operation
and Financial Support for Military Museums
This section would repeal an annual report by the Secretary
of Defense on Department of Defense operations and financial
support for military museums required by section 489 of title
10, United States Code.
Section 332--Report on Enduring Requirements and Activities Currently
Funded Through Amounts Authorized to Be Appropriated for Overseas
Contingency Operations
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees concurrent with
the President's budget for fiscal year 2016, pursuant to
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, a one-time
assessment of enduring mission requirements, equipping,
training, sustainment, and other operation and maintenance-
related activities of each military department, combat support
agency, and the Department of Defense currently funded through
the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget. The provision
also requires associated funding information and a 3-year
migration plan to move enduring requirements funding into the
base budget.
The committee is concerned about the large portion of
enduring activities, training, sustainment, and other military
requirements being funded through amounts authorized to be
appropriated for OCO. The committee believes the Department of
Defense is accepting high levels of risk in continuing to fund
non-contingency related activities through the OCO budget and
has not fully articulated the scope of enduring OCO-funded
activities or a clear path forward in migrating enduring
requirement resources to the base budget.
Section 333--Army Assessment of the Regionally Aligned Force
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
submit a strategic assessment of the regionally aligned force
to the congressional defense committees concurrent with the
submission of the President's budget for fiscal year 2016
pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.
The committee supports the U.S. Army's regionally aligned
force (RAF) concept, but has concerns about the
institutionalization of pre-deployment training, incorporation
of lessons learned, and the adequate coordination of activities
between contractors, Special Operations Forces, Army RAF units,
and joint exercise partners. The committee is also concerned
about the complexity of utilizing multiple funding authorities
to support RAF activities and impacts associated with the long-
term commitment of RAF forces to meet security cooperation
requirements. The committee believes better coordination and
long-term planning are needed to ensure RAF units maintain high
levels of core mission readiness while supporting geographic
combatant commander requirements.
The committee notes that while elsewhere in this report,
the committee also directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to assess the RAF concept, more specifically its
employment in the U.S. Africa Command area of responsibility,
the committee expects the assessment required by this section
to be a separate and distinct forward-looking, internal
assessment of the RAF concept, yet inform the Comptroller
General's work.
Section 334--Report on Impacts of Funding Reductions on Military
Readiness
This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) to report to the congressional defense committees
the readiness and cost impacts of the reductions in operation
and maintenance funding required in section 4301 of this Act.
Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority
Section 341--Limitation on Authority to Enter into a Contract for the
Sustainment, Maintenance, Repair, or Overhaul of the F117 Engine
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force
from entering into a subsequent contract for the sustainment,
maintenance, repair, and overhaul of the F117 engine until the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics certifies to the congressional defense committees
that the Secretary of the Air Force has structured the contract
in such a way that provides the Secretary required insight into
all aspects of F117 component and subcomponent historical
usage, cost, service-life, and supply chain management data
sufficient to determine that the Secretary is paying a fair and
reasonable price for F117 sustainment as compared to the PW2000
commercial-derivative sustainment price in the private sector.
This section would also allow the Secretary to waive this
limitation if the Secretary determines such waiver is in the
interests of national security.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 351--Clarification of Authority Relating to Provision of
Installation-Support Services Through Intergovernmental Support
Agreements
This section would transfer and redesignate section 2336 of
title 10, United States Code, to chapter 159 of such title.
This section would also define an intergovernmental support
agreement and provide other technical changes.
Section 352--Sense of Congress on Access to Training Ranges within
United States Pacific Command Area of Responsibility
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding
access to training ranges within U.S. Pacific Command's area of
responsibility.
Section 353--Management of Conventional Ammunition Inventory
This section would designate an authoritative database on
conventional ammunition and broaden the existing military
service annual reporting requirements on conventional
ammunition.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
OVERVIEW
The Defense Strategic Guidance calls for a leaner, more
adaptable force. The Department of Defense has determined it
cannot support a standing force for large-scale prolonged
stability operations but instead will maintain one that can
quickly deter, defeat, and, if needed, rebuild capacity for
unforeseen requirements. This means a smaller Active Duty
force, with a Reserve Component capable of continuing to
operate as an operational reserve to maintain strategic depth,
which is reflected in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget
request. The budget included further reductions in the Active
Component end strength in the Army, Marine Corps, and Air
Force, while preserving the Navy at its current level. The
committee notes the services plan for more drastic reductions
in end strength and force structure in fiscal year 2016 absent
a change to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA).
The Reserve Components will make minor reductions in fiscal
year 2015; but just as the Active Component, the Reserves will
be required to take further reductions over the 5-year fiscal
defense plan, which also could be significantly steeper absent
repeal of sequestration. As the Active Components reduce end
strength, the committee encourages the services to ensure the
proper force structure and resourcing is provided to the
Reserve Components in order to preserve an operational reserve.
The committee also recommends that as missions such as cyber
security, space operations, and unmanned aerial systems
continue grow, the services incorporate the Reserve Components
into these force structure requirements to capitalize on the
expertise of the Reserve Component members.
The committee understands the situation the Army and Marine
Corps face in this current budget environment, but remains
concerned with the planned force reductions for the Army and
Marine Corps, and with the Navy's continued challenges manning
the fleet while combat and contingency commitments continue.
This continued stress on the force, coupled with potential
further reductions as a result of the BCA's discretionary caps,
may have serious implications on the capacity and capability of
the All-Volunteer Force and the ability for the services to
meet the National Defense Strategy.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for Active Duty personnel of the Armed Forces as of September
30, 2015:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Change from
---------------------------------------------
Service FY 2014 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2015 FY 2014
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army.................................................. 520,000 490,000 490,000 0 -30,000
Navy.................................................. 323,600 323,600 323,600 0 0
USMC.................................................. 190,200 184,100 184,100 0 -6,100
Air Force............................................. 327,600 310,900 311,220 320 -16,380
---------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total........................................... 1,361,400 1,308,600 1,308,600 0 -53,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402--Revisions in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum
Levels
This section would establish new minimum Active Duty end
strengths for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force as of
September 30, 2015. The committee recommends 490,000 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Army, 323,600 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Navy, 184,100 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and
310,900 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Air
Force.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for Selected Reserve personnel, including the end strength for
Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves, as of
September 30, 2015:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Change from
--------------------------------------------
Service FY 2014 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2015 FY 2014
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.................................... 354,200 350,200 350,200 0 -4,000
Army Reserve........................................... 205,000 202,000 202,000 0 -3,000
Navy Reserve........................................... 59,100 57,300 57,300 0 -1,800
Marine Corps Reserve................................... 39,600 39,200 39,200 0 -400
Air National Guard..................................... 105,400 105,000 105,000 0 -400
Air Force Reserve...................................... 70,400 67,100 67,100 0 -3,300
--------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................................ 833,700 820,800 820,800 0 12,900
Coast Guard Reserve.................................... 9,000 7,000 7,000 0 -2,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of
the Reserves
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves as of
September 30, 2015:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Change from
--------------------------------------------
Service FY 2014 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2015 FY 2014
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.................................... 32,060 31,385 31,385 0 -675
Army Reserve........................................... 16,261 16,261 16,261 0 00
Navy Reserve........................................... 10,159 9,973 9,973 0 -186
Marine Corps Reserve................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 00
Air National Guard..................................... 14,734 14,704 14,704 0 -30
Air Force Reserve...................................... 2,911 2,830 2,830 0 -81
--------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................................ 78,386 77,414 77,414 0 -972
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30,
2015:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Change from
--------------------------------------------
Service FY 2014 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2015 FY 2014
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.................................... 27,210 27,210 27,210 0 0
Army Reserve........................................... 8,395 7,895 7,895 0 -500
Air National Guard..................................... 21,875 21,792 21,792 0 -83
Air Force Reserve...................................... 10,429 9,789 9,789 0 -640
--------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................................ 67,909 66,686 66,686 0 -1,223
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2015 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status
Technicians
This section would establish the maximum end strengths for
the Reserve Components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual
status technicians as of September 30, 2015:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Change from
--------------------------------------------
Service FY 2014 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2015 FY 2014
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.................................... 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0
Air National Guard..................................... 350 350 350 0 0
Army Reserve........................................... 595 595 595 0 0
Air Force Reserve...................................... 90 90 90 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................................ 2,635 2,635 2,635 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized To Be on
Active Duty for Operational Support
This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b)
of title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of Reserve
Component personnel who may be on Active Duty or full-time
National Guard duty during fiscal year 2015 to provide
operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count
against the end strengths authorized by section 401 or section
412 of this Act unless the duration on Active Duty exceeds the
limitations in section 115(b)(2) of title 10, United States
Code.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Change from
--------------------------------------------
Service FY 2014 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2015 FY 2014
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.................................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0
Army Reserve........................................... 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0
Navy Reserve........................................... 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0
Marine Corps Reserve................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0
Air National Guard..................................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0
Air Force Reserve...................................... 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................................ 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 421--Military Personnel
This section would authorize appropriations for military
personnel at the levels identified in the funding table in
section 4401 of division D of this Act.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
OVERVIEW
The committee continues to be concerned with the Department
of Defense's efforts to smartly manage the force. Therefore,
the committee would provide authority to remove the limitation
on the number of officers recommended for discharge in a given
fiscal year in comparison to the number of officers discharged
the preceding fiscal year and provides the military Secretaries
the authority to establish specific objectives to best select
warrant officers for early retirement. Additionally, the
committee remains concerned during this drawdown that the
services are able to retain the best qualified service members
and extends the authority to conduct career flexibility
programs for service members until 2019.
In support of military members and their families, the
committee would provide assistance to local educational
agencies that are impacted by the enrollment of dependent
children of military members and Department of Defense civilian
employees.
In the area of sexual assault prevention and response, the
committee would direct several changes to refine the
fundamental revisions made in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). The
committee would require that appropriateness of command climate
be included in performance appraisals of commanding officers.
The committee would further require the Judicial Proceedings
Panel established under section 576 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to
review and assess the use of mental health records by the
defense during preliminary hearings and court-martial
proceedings under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and in
civilian legal proceedings.
In the area of suicide prevention, the committee would
require the Department to formulate a standardized policy
governing collection, reporting, and assessing of suicide data
for Active Duty and Reserve Components members and their
dependents. The Department has made great strides in the area
of suicide prevention, and improvement of suicide data
management will serve as a strong foundation for this ongoing
endeavor. However, the committee is concerned that while it
appears suicides among members of the general forces have
declined, the rate of suicides by members of the Special
Operations Forces has increased. Therefore, the committee would
direct a review and assessment of the suicide prevention
efforts for members of the Special Operations Forces and their
dependents.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Analysis for Change in Basic Allowance for Housing
The committee is concerned that the Administration's
proposal to modify the basic allowance for housing to increase
the out of pocket costs for service members and their families
up to five percent out of pocket, as well as eliminate the
stipend for renter's insurance in the calculation for housing
allowance may have unintended consequences that have not been
fully explored. The Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission is currently reviewing compensation
programs, including the basic allowance for housing, and its
report is due on February 1, 2015. The committee recommends
that the Department of Defense share with the Commission, the
analysis, if any, that was conducted on the impact of
increasing the basic allowance for housing will have on member
retention, readiness and morale of the force. The Department
should also share any analysis that was conducted on the impact
to the housing privatization program, including any impact to
recapitalization accounts, debt service, operation, maintenance
and repair requirements and long-term operation of privatized
projects. The committee looks forward to the results of the
Commission, including any analysis on the impact of changes to
the basic allowance for housing for service members.
Arlington National Cemetery Advisory Committee
The committee applauds the efforts the Army has taken to
correct deficiencies in the oversight, management, and
operations of Arlington National Cemetery. The Army's efforts
to ensure the final resting place for our Nation's veterans and
their families represent and demonstrate the highest ideals of
honor and commitment which is to be commended. The
establishment of the Arlington National Cemetery Advisory
Committee provides an independent viewpoint to ensure that
interests of veterans and surviving family members are taken
into account. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense
to continue efforts to ensure that the advisory committee
maintains a diverse representation of all constituencies and
the Armed Forces and that the membership is filled to the
fullest extent possible.
Briefing on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the
House Committee on Armed Services on the status of the
implementation of the sexual assault provisions in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81); the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013 (Public Law 112-239); the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66); and the
initiatives announced in a memorandum by the Secretary of
Defense on August 14, 2013. The briefing should include the
extent to which the services have implemented policies,
procedures, training, and education as required by Department
of Defense policies, programs, and regulations. The briefing
should be conducted not later than March 1, 2015.
Comptroller General Review of Army National Guard Recruiting Practices
The committee is concerned with the management and
oversight of Army National Guard recruiting practices. The
committee notes a series of issues over the past 5 to 8 years
with recruiter and enlistment bonus irregularities, and the
ongoing criminal investigation of the Guard Recruiter
Assistance Program (GRAP). The committee is concerned that
regulations and polices set forth by the Secretary of the Army
and the National Guard Bureau are not being adhered to
consistently across all of the States and territories.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to conduct a review of the Army and Army National Guard
recruiting regulations, policies, and procedures to determine
if the Army and Army National Guard have processes in place to
ensure that these regulations and policies are being adhered to
by recruiters in the States and territories. The review shall
include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) An assessment of how the Army and Army National Guard
ensure that eligibility criteria for enlistment are enforced in
a selected number of States and the impact this may have on the
recruiting mission;
(2) An assessment of the number of persons who enlist,
complete basic and advanced individual training, and remain in
the Army National Guard for their initial term of service;
(3) An assessment of the extent to which persons who have
contracted with a specified enlistment bonus, but were not
authorized to receive a bonus by policy or regulation;
(4) An assessment of the average length of time between
when a person enlists in the Army National Guard and the person
completes the initial entry training required to be deployable;
(5) An assessment of the contracting vehicles being used by
the Army National Guard to support recruiters and how the Army
National Guard ensures such contracting vehicles comply with
Department of Defense, Army policies and regulations; and,
(6) Recommendations for the leadership of the Army and the
National Guard Bureau to improve and enforce compliance of
regulations and policies with respect to recruiting.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to report the
results of the assessment to the congressional defense
committees by June 1, 2015.
Comptroller General Review of Army Reserve and Army National Guard Non-
Availability for Mobilization
The committee is concerned with the high percentage of
soldiers in the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard that
are not available for mobilization. The Army Reserves has
approximately 25 percent of its force non-available for
mobilization, with the majority due to medical non-
availability. The Army National Guard has almost 30 percent of
its force non-available for mobilization, with the two largest
categories being medically non-available and those who have not
completed entry level training. As the active Army reduces its
end strength to potentially 420,000 soldiers, the readiness and
availability of the Reserve Component to maintain its
operational focus becomes even more critical. While the Reserve
Components have made significant contributions to Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom over the last 13
years, only about half of their medical non-available
population has ever deployed. The committee is concerned with
the efforts of the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard to
manage the personnel readiness of their force.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a review of the Army Reserve and
Army National Guard non-available population to:
(1) Determine the extent to which programs, policies, and
regulations are being followed;
(2) Assess the management of such forces to minimize the
impact to unit and individual deployments;
(3) Evaluate the process by which the Reserves and Guard
are able to determine the extent and length of the non-
availability of those who have a medical profile and when such
individuals should be assessed for a medical board
determination;
(4) Assess whether the current process to assign
individuals to units who have not completed their entry level
training is the best course of action to man the Army National
Guard; and
(5) Determine whether there are any systematic issues that
result in a significant non-available population.
The Comptroller General is required to submit a report
containing the results of the review to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not
later than June 1, 2015. The committee requests the Comptroller
General also provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the
initial findings of the review by April 1, 2015.
Comptroller General Review Regarding Department of Defense and Military
Departments Professionalism and Ethics Programs
The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for
focusing on military ethics, character, and leadership within
the Department of Defense. Recently, the Secretary established
a senior adviser for military professionalism for the
Department who will report directly to the Secretary on issues
related to military ethics, character, and leadership.
Considering the high-profile lapses involving senior leaders,
the committee remains concerned about how this new position
will be executed and the roles, responsibilities, and
effectiveness of the military services' ethics programs. The
committee, therefore, directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to initiate a comprehensive review of the
Department of Defense and military departments' programs on
professionalism, ethics, and integrity in the armed services
for officers and enlisted service members. The Comptroller
General should submit a report of the Comptroller's findings to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by not later than August 31, 2015.
Additionally, the committee requests the Comptroller brief the
committees on preliminary observations by April 1, 2015. As
part of the review, the Comptroller General should include an
evaluation of military service assessment tools and report on
the extent to which those tools capture and assess
professionalism, ethics, and integrity issues.
Continuum of Service and Reserve Component Duty Statuses
The committee notes the effort the military services have
initiated to create greater flexibility for movement between
the Active and Reserve Components, commonly referred to as
continuum of service. The services have determined that this
personnel initiative is key to allowing greater flexibility in
the force. However, the committee notes that the current number
of duty statuses for the Reserve Components is a hindrance to
this initiative. The Commission on the National Guard and
Reserve and the Commission on the Structure of the Air Force
both recognized this as a barrier to fully implementing a
continuum of service and recommended the Department of Defense
reduce the number of duty statuses from 35 to approximately 6.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, not later than January 1, 2015, a proposal
that would reduce the duty status of the Reserve Components to
no more than eight pay statutes to assist in creating greater
flexibility for the Reserve Components to be more interoperable
with the Active Components.
Department of Defense Hair and Grooming Standards
The Secretary of Defense shall not enforce and shall
evaluate the changes to hair standards and grooming policies
for female service members, as those contained in paragraph 3-2
of Army Regulation 670-1, issued on March 31, 2014, and report
to the congressional defense committees the results of the
evaluation. The evaluation shall include the opinions of those
who may have religious accommodation requirements and
minorities serving in the Armed Forces.
Diversity of the Armed Forces
The committee continues to support efforts by the services
to ensure diversity among the force. The committee remains
concerned that the efforts by the services to ensure that our
Nation's military is reflective of American society are being
reduced due to the current budget environment. The committee
understands the challenges that the services are facing, but
urges the services to maintain, and where possible, increase
their advertising within minority communities, to support their
commitment to ensuring a strong diverse force. Recruitment
advertising within minority communities is an important avenue
toward building interest and understanding in serving our
Nation in uniform. The committee urges the services and the
Department of Defense to maintain a commitment to diversity
recruiting and retention.
Medal of Honor Process
The committee is encouraged that the Secretary of Defense
has directed a comprehensive review of military decorations and
awards. After 13 years of combat, it is imperative that we
ensure service members have been properly recognized for their
sacrifices and actions given the changed combat environment.
The committee urges the Secretary to pay particular attention
to the Medal of Honor process to ensure that individuals
nominated for this award have not been hindered by delayed
submissions or lack of timely action. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense as part of the comprehensive military
decoration and awards review, to review the nomination process,
the valor requirements, and the amount of time taken from
submission of a nomination to approval by the Secretary of
Defense to enhance the medal awards process. The review should
also specifically review the Medal of Honor process to ensure
that the nomination process, valor requirements, and timeliness
of the process do not unfairly penalize service members. The
Secretary of Defense should submit the results of the review,
along with the specific focus on the Medal of Honor process, to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services by June 1, 2015.
Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System Firefighting Mission
The committee recognizes the important capability of the
Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve Modular Airborne
Fire Fighting System (MAFFS) to assist the National Forest
Service and State and local agencies fight forest fires. The
committee believes that the National Guard should continue in
its role as first responders to civil authorities, since the
Guard is trained and ready to respond to natural disasters and
emergencies regardless of State lines. The committee has become
aware that, as a result of members who were killed while on a
mission, the Department of Defense is reviewing a policy change
dictating which authorities the Air National Guard should be
activated under while in support of these missions. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, 60 days prior to any change in policy, a
review and assessment of the factors used to make a
determination of the appropriate duty status for members of the
Air National Guard under either title 10 or title 32; the
benefits the member may be afforded under title 10 or title 32
status; the average response time under title 10 or title 32
status; any degradation of the readiness of the MAFFS as a
result of different duty statuses; and any other issues that
were considered to make a determination on the status under
which MAFFS is used to response to a natural disaster or
emergency. In addition, any proposed policy change shall not
take effect until after the end of the 30-day calendar period
beginning on the date on which the Secretary provides notice of
the proposed policy change to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Recognizing Military Chaplains
The committee recognizes the historical and present-day
significance of the chaplaincies of the military departments.
Since General George Washington and the First Continental
Congress created the Chaplain Corps on July 29, 1775, military
chaplains have offered spiritual leadership to service members.
Since the inception of the Chaplain Corps in 1775, over
25,000 chaplains have served as religious and spiritual leaders
for 25 million soldiers and their families in every war in
which America has engaged. Four hundred chaplains have paid the
ultimate sacrifice and given their lives in service to this
country; 7 chaplains received the Medal of Honor; 27 received
the Distinguished Service Cross; and many others received
Purple Hearts, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars for Valor, and Combat
Action Badges.
The committee acknowledges that military chaplains exist
``to advise and assist commanders in the discharge of their
responsibilities to provide for the free exercise of religion
in the context of military service as guaranteed by the
Constitution, to assist commanders in managing Religious
Affairs, and to serve as the principal advisors to commanders
for all issues regarding the impact of religion on military
operations.''
The committee commends the chaplaincies of the military
departments and urges the Department of Defense to support
chaplains in their efforts to serve and minister to our men and
women in uniform.
Report on Need for Uniform Code of Military Justice Punitive Article
The committee notes the requirement in section 1741 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66) that requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report containing the recommendations of the
Secretary regarding the need to amend chapter 47 of title 10,
United States Code, to create an additional article to address
violations of the policy regarding prohibited and inappropriate
relationships between a service member who exercises authority
or control over a prospective member of the Armed Forces
undergoing entry-level processing or training. The deadline for
the report is June 2014. The committee expects the Secretary to
provide the report by the required due date.
Report on the Sufficiency of Department of Defense Chaplain Guidance in
Response to the Independent Review Related to Fort Hood
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees by April 1,
2015, on the results of a review to determine if current
Department of Defense guidance regarding an individual,
ecclesiastical endorsing agent, or religious organization's
conviction or indictment of a terrorism-related offense or
other offense threatening national security and their
participation in the chaplaincy is sufficient to meet the
recommendations of the Department of Defense Independent Review
Related to Fort Hood.
Support to Youth and Charitable Organizations
The committee recognizes the importance of youth and
charitable organizations that provide opportunities for the
young men and women of America and the partnerships fostered
with the Department of Defense and the military services. These
relationships provide important training opportunities for the
services, especially the Reserves and the National Guard.
Section 508 of title 32, United States Code, establishes
eligible organizations, and provides the Secretary of Defense
the ability to designate other youth and charitable
organizations. The committee encourages the Secretary to
consider designating any Student Cadet Corps, when requested,
as an organization eligible for assistance from the National
Guard.
Transition Assistance Program
The committee applauds the Department of Defense's revamped
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) to provide assistance to
career ready military members transitioning to a new career or
further education following military separation. The new
Transition--Goals, Plans, Success (Transition--GPS) is an
enhanced program established to assist members with their
transition as the military draws down. Transition--GPS gives
the Department the flexibility and authorities required to
execute its role in providing information, counseling, tools,
and training for service members to transition from the
military. While the committee stands by the good work the
Department has done through Transition--GPS, the committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense to continuously improve and
build the program. The committee supports the conclusions
reached by the March 2014 Government Accountability Office
report, Transitioning Veterans: Improved Oversight Needed to
Enhance Implementation of Transition Assistance Program (GAO-
14-144), and is specifically concerned with any lack of ability
for individual unit commanders to participate in TAP and
continued weakness in outcome measures, making it difficult to
attribute results to TAP. The committee therefore directs the
Secretary of Defense to comply with the recommendations for
executive action listed in the GAO report.
U.S. Air Force Academy Reductions
The committee recognizes the critical role of the U.S. Air
Force Academy (USAFA) in educating and cultivating the next
generation of leaders for the U.S. Air Force. The committee is
aware that the Air Force Academy Superintendent, due to budget
reductions, is intending to eliminate 10 academic majors and
multiple permanent staff positions, to include 40 Academy
Military Trainers (AMTs). This will result in a reduction of
Academy Military Trainers to 1 per squadron of approximately
100 cadets. AMTs provide critical services to cadets, including
counseling, mentorship, and professional training essential to
the development of Air Force leaders. Additionally, AMTs foster
a foundation of trust within the cadet squadrons which is
critical to developing and inculcating the ethics and moral
values required for service in the military, as well as
ensuring the well-being of the cadets attending the Academy.
The committee finds this reduction troubling as the average age
of a cadet is younger than the average Air Force enlistee. The
committee is concerned that a reduction of AMTs unnecessarily
jeopardizes the culture in the cadet squadrons by reducing
resources for a cadet's professional development and personal
well-being, which may lead to an increase in misconduct and
sexual assaults. Prior to any reduction in staff at the Air
Force Academy, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, not later than January 1,
2015, an assessment justifying the need to cut permanent
military staff in the cadet squadrons. The assessment should
include the factors the Secretary used to make a determination
for personnel cuts, how the Air Force Academy will ensure the
professional development and personal well-being of cadets if
these cuts are enacted, and any other determinations that were
considered in the reduction of programs and degrees offered by
the Air Force Academy.
U.S. Special Operations Command Education Initiatives
The committee recognizes the vital role of education in
developing the next generation of leaders and subject matter
experts within the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM).
The committee notes the unique role of the Joint Special
Operations University (JSOU) in developing Special Operations
Forces (SOF) specific strategic and operational leadership
within USSOCOM. The committee is aware of an expansion effort
by the JSOU to include accreditation for bachelor and master's
degree programs. The committee also notes the increase in
advanced civilian education initiatives USSOCOM has taken over
the past 2 years by increasing attendance of officers at the
Naval Post Graduate School, creating a special master's degree
program through Kansas State University for officers attending
the Command and General Staff College and sending officers to
Johns Hopkins University to obtain a Master of Arts in
Legislative Affairs. The committee understands the dynamic
situations in which SOF operate at the tactical, operation, and
strategic level and recognizes that there are requirements for
higher education to increase opportunities for success.
However, the committee is concerned with the validation of
the requirement for JSOU to offer degrees, as well as the
increased education requirements for officers that cannot be
accomplished through the parent service. There are numerous
degree-granting programs Department-wide, as well as
partnership opportunities with civilian institutions which may
meet mission requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense in coordination with the service
secretaries to provide the congressional defense committees,
not later than March 1, 2015, an assessment of the validity of
the course and degree requirements at JSOU, including USSOCOM's
master's degree requirements for officers. The assessment of
JSOU should include an analysis of current and proposed JSOU
programs, including which programs can be accomplished at
service schools or civilian institutions, and justification for
JSOU to receive degree-granting authority. The assessment of
USSOCOM's master's degree requirements should include a review
of the positions coded as required to hold a master's degree,
the number of officers who are required to attend fully funded
master's degree programs on an annual basis to meet the
position requirements, and the historical promotion rates and
command selection rates for SOF officers who hold master's
degrees from fully funded programs and serve in these master's
degree coded positions. The assessment should also include the
costs associated with JSOU receiving degree-granting authority
across the Future Years Defense Program.
Unmanned Aerial System Transition of Personnel
The committee is aware that the Federal Aviation
Administration has selected six Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)
research and test sites to assess the integration of UAS in the
Nation's airspace. The committee notes that military trained
UAS pilots and maintenance personnel have accumulated extensive
experience operating UASs in a range of environments. With the
emergence of UAS technology in the civilian sector, the UAS
industry will need a highly trained workforce of pilots,
mechanics, and other support personnel. The committee
recognizes that the services are being forced to reduce their
force structure, and UAS personnel may need to transition from
the military to civilian communities. The Department of Defense
has undertaken efforts to address the transition of service
members in a number of career fields, such as nursing and
information technology. Therefore, the committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to assess the transition pathway for UAS
personnel from military service to civilian employment as part
of the Department's ongoing transition pilot program.
Use of Reserve Officers Training Corps Scholarships to Increase Cyber
Security Expertise
The committee notes the efforts the Department of Defense
has taken to increase cyber security capability and expertise.
The committee believes it is important to ensure the Department
and military services are capitalizing on the cyber education
capabilities in institutions of higher education to train the
current cyber force, as well as produce future military cyber
leaders. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of
Defense and the military services to utilize the Reserve
Officers Training Corps scholarship program to partner with the
National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security
Centers of Academic Excellence program and institutions of
higher education, for cyber security to ensure the Department
of Defense can access the requisite number of qualified
officers into the cyber security field.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally
Section 501--Authority to Limit Consideration for Early Retirement by
Selective Retirement Boards to Particular Warrant Officer Year Groups
and Specialties
This section would provide the Secretaries of the military
departments the authority to establish selection objectives for
warrant officer specialties for Selective Retirement Boards
(SRBs) convened pursuant to section 581 of title 10, United
States Code. This authority is necessary to enable the services
to retain the very best warrant officers in each warrant
officer specialty and not exacerbate the shortage of warrant
officers in under-strength and low-density warrant officer
specialties, as forces are drawn down during fiscal years 2014
through 2017.
Section 502--Relief from Limits on the Percentage of Officers Who May
Be Recommended for Discharge during a Fiscal Year Using Enhanced
Authority for Selective Early Discharges
This section would amend section 638a of title 10, United
States Code, to give relief from limits on the percentage of
officers who may be recommended for discharge during a fiscal
year using enhanced authority for selective early discharges.
This section would remove the limitation on the number of
officers recommended for discharge in a given fiscal year in
comparison to the number of officers discharged the preceding
fiscal year. Currently, the number of regular officers
recommended for discharge cannot exceed 70 percent of the
number of officers discharged from Active Duty the preceding
fiscal year.
Section 503--Repeal of Requirement for Submission to Congress of Annual
Reports on Joint Officer Management and Promotion Policy Objectives for
Joint Officers
This section would repeal section 667 and section 662(b) of
title 10, United States Code, removing the requirement to
submit an annual report to Congress concerning the Department
of Defense Joint Officer Management Program.
Section 504--Options for Phase II of Joint Professional Military
Education
This section would amend section 2154(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to authorize a senior service level course
of at least 10 months in duration designated and certified by
the Secretary of Defense to award Joint Professional Military
Education Level II credit.
Section 505--Limitation on Number of Enlisted Aides Authorized for
Officers of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps
This section would amend section 981 of title 10, United
States Code, to modify the current limitation on the number of
enlisted aides authorized to support general and flag officers.
The maximum number of enlisted aides would be modified to be
the lesser of 300 or the number of enlisted aides calculated
based on two times the number of generals or admirals and the
number lieutenant generals or vice admirals on Active Duty the
preceding fiscal year. Further, this section would require the
Secretaries of the military departments to report annually to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives the total number of enlisted aides assigned and
authorized as aides for general and flag officers.
Section 506--Required Consideration of Certain Elements of Command
Climate in Performance Appraisals of Commanding Officers
This section would require a Secretary of a military
department to include information regarding command climate
with regard to allegations of sexual assault and the response
to the victim of sexual assault by other members of the command
on the performance appraisal of a commanding officer.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Personnel Management
Section 511--Retention on the Reserve Active-Status List Following
Nonselection for Promotion of Certain Health Professions Officers and
First Lieutenants and Lieutenants (Junior Grade) Pursuing Baccalaureate
Degrees
This section would amend section 14701 of title 10, United
States Code, to permit certain first lieutenants of the Army,
Air Force, and Marine Corps, and lieutenants (junior grade) of
the Navy, who have twice failed for selection for promotion to
the next higher grade to be considered for continuation on the
reserve active-status list. Further, the proposal would require
the Secretaries of the military departments to retain health
care professionals who have twice failed for promotion to the
next higher grade, but who have not completed any service
commitment incurred as a result of their participation in a
health professions stipend program under section 16201 of title
10, United States Code, known in the Army as the Specialized
Training Assistance Program. These two changes will allow the
services to selectively continue officers qualified in
critically short specialties required to provide medical
support to the combatant commands.
Section 512--Chief of the National Guard Bureau Role in Assignment of
Directors and Deputy Directors of the Army and Air National Guards
This section would amend section 10506(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to include the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau in the selection and nomination process for the Director
and Deputy Director of the Army National Guard and Air National
Guard.
Section 513--National Guard Civil and Defense Support Activities and
Related Matters
This section would amend chapter 1 of title 32, United
States Code, by adding a new section to authorize the use of
the National Guard to provide assistance to support
firefighting operations, missions, or activities, including
aerial firefighting employment of the Modular Airborne
Firefighting System.
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities
Section 521--Procedures for Judicial Review of Military Personnel
Decisions Relating to Correction of Military Records
This section would establish procedures for judicial review
for any final decision regarding records correction made under
sections 1034(g) or (h) and section 1552 or 1554a of title 10,
United States Code, by requiring the service member to exhaust
administrative relief procedures before seeking judicial review
for correction of military records or decisions granted by the
boards for the correction of military records. Additionally,
this section would require that service members be notified of
their right to judicial review and of the statutory time limits
associated with judicial review of correction board decisions.
Section 522--Additional Required Elements of Transition Assistance
Program
This section would amend section 1144 of title 10, United
States Code, by requiring any member who plans to use
educational assistance entitlements under title 38 to receive
instruction on an overview of those entitlements, courses in
post-secondary education appropriate for the member and
compatible with the member's goals, and how to finance the
member's education. Implementation of this section would occur
not later than April 1, 2016.
Section 523--Extension of Authority to Conduct Career Flexibility
Programs
This section would extend the authority of the Secretary of
a military department, until December 31, 2019, to carry out
pilot programs under which officers and enlisted members of the
Regular Component, under the jurisdiction of the Secretary
concerned, may be inactivated from Active Duty in order to meet
personal or professional needs and returned to Active Duty at
the end of the period of inactivation.
Section 524--Provision of Information to Members of the Armed Forces on
Privacy Rights Relating to Receipt of Mental Health Services
This section would require the Secretaries of the military
departments to provide information regarding the privacy rights
of a service member who is seeking and receiving mental health
services. The Secretary would be required to provide this
information to service members during initial and basic
training, and to other members of the Armed Forces as
determined by the Secretary of Defense.
Section 525--Protection of the Religious Freedom of Military Chaplains
to Close a Prayer Outside of a Religious Service According to the
Traditions, Expressions, and Religious Exercises of the Endorsing Faith
Group
This section would authorize a chaplain, if called upon to
lead a prayer outside of a religious service, to close the
prayer according to the traditions, expressions, and religious
exercises of the endorsing faith group.
Section 526--Department of Defense Senior Advisor on Professionalism
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
communicate with the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives the mission, goals, and
metrics for the Senior Advisor on Professionalism. This section
would further require the Senior Advisor on Professionalism to
conduct reviews of the current programs on professionalism of
the Department of Defense and the military departments.
Additionally, this section would require the Senior Advisor on
Professionalism to submit recommendations to strengthen
professional programs in the Department of Defense to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
Section 527--Removal of Artificial Barriers to the Service of Women in
the Armed Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
direct the Secretary of each military service to validate the
gender-neutral occupational standards used by the Armed Forces.
Each Secretary would be required to work with an independent
research entity to validate the standards. Further, this
section would require each Secretary of a military department
to ensure that properly designed and fitted combat equipment is
available and distributed to female members of the Armed
Forces. This section would require the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a review of services' Outreach and
Recruitment Efforts gauged toward women representation in the
officer corps to include current initiatives used by the Armed
Forces to increase accessions of women into the officer corps,
new recruiting efforts to increase accessions of women into
military service academies and Reserve Officer Training Corps,
and resources and funding required to increase military service
academy accessions by women and report the findings to Congress
by April 1, 2015.
Subtitle D--Military Justice, Including Sexual Assault and Domestic
Violence Prevention and Response
Section 531--Improved Department of Defense Information Reporting and
Collection of Domestic Violence Incidents Involving Members of the
Armed Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within
1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, to develop a
comprehensive management plan to address deficiencies in the
reporting of incidents of domestic violence involving members
of the Armed Forces.
Section 532--Additional Duty for Judicial Proceedings Panel Regarding
Use of Mental Health Records by Defense during Preliminary Hearing and
Court-Martial Proceedings
This section would require the Judicial Proceedings Panel
established under section 576 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to
review and assess the use of mental health records by the
defense during preliminary hearings and court-martial
proceedings under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. The
panel would also be required to review the use of mental health
records in civilian legal proceedings.
Section 533--Applicability of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
and Related Military Justice Enhancements to Military Service Academies
This section would require the Secretary of the military
department concerned to ensure the provisions of title XVII of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Public Law 113-66) apply to the United States Military
Academy, the Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy, and the
Coast Guard Academy.
Section 534--Consultation with Victims of Sexual Assault Regarding
Victims' Preference for Prosecution of Offense by Court-Martial or
Civilian Court
This section would require the Secretary concerned to
establish a procedure to ensure a victim of an alleged sexual-
related offense is consulted regarding the victim's preference
for prosecution authority by court-martial or a civilian court
with jurisdiction over the offense.
Section 535--Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights Related to
Protections Afforded by Certain Military Rules of Evidence
This section would authorize a victim of an offense under
Section 806b of title 10, United States Code, to petition the
Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus to require the
court-martial to comply with the Military Rule of Evidence 513
and 412, if the victim believes that a court-martial ruling
violates the victim's rights under such Rule.
Section 536--Minimum Confinement Period Required for Conviction of
Certain Sex-Related Offenses Committed by Members of the Armed Forces
This section would require at a minimum, dismissal or
dishonorable discharge and confinement for 2 years for sex-
related offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Section 537--Modification of Military Rules of Evidence Relating to
Admissibility of General Military Character Toward Probability of
Innocence
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
modify the Military Rules of Evidence to make clear that the
general military character of an accused is not admissible for
the purpose of showing the probability of innocence except when
the trait of the military character of an accused is relevant
to an element of an offense for which the accused has been
charged and may only be used for specified military-specific
offenses.
Section 538--Confidential Review of Characterization of Terms of
Discharge of Members of the Armed Forces Who Are Victims of Sexual
Offenses
This section would require the Secretaries of the military
departments to establish a confidential process for victims of
a sex-related offense to appeal, through boards for correction
of military records, the characterization of discharge or
separation of the individual from the Armed Forces.
Section 539--Consistent Application of Rules of Privilege Afforded
Under the Military Rules of Evidence
This section would eliminate the constitutionally required
exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege which is
afforded to the patient of a psychotherapist to refuse to
disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, a
confidential communication made between the patient and
psychotherapist.
Subtitle E--Military Family Readiness
Section 545--Earlier Determination of Dependent Status with Respect to
Transitional Compensation for Dependents of Members Separated for
Dependent Abuse
This section would provide for an earlier determination of
dependent child status under section 1059(d)(4) of title 10,
United States Code. Dependency would be determined as of the
date the separation action is initiated, when a member is
administratively separated for a dependent abuse offense. Under
current law, an individual's status as a dependent child is
determined as of the date the member is actually separated.
Section 546--Improved Consistency in Data Collection and Reporting in
Armed Forces Suicide Prevention Efforts
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
prescribe a policy for a standard method of collecting,
reporting, and assessing suicide data involving members of the
Armed Forces and their dependents, including Reserve
Components. The Secretary would be required, within 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, to submit the
policy to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives.
Section 547--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents Who
Are Members of the Armed Forces
This section would amend title II of the Service Members
Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. app. 521) to require a court that
issued a temporary custody order based solely on the deployment
or anticipated deployment of a service member to reinstate the
custody order that was in effect immediately preceding the
temporary order, unless the court finds reinstatement is not in
the best interest of the child. This section would also
prohibit a court from using deployment or the possibility of
deployment as the sole factor when determining the best
interest of a child.
Subtitle F--Education and Training Opportunities
Section 551--Authorized Duration of Foreign and Cultural Exchange
Activities at Military Service Academies
This section would amend sections 4345a, 6957b, and 9345a
of title 10, United States Code, to allow attendance of foreign
exchange personnel to the military service academies from 2 to
4 weeks.
Section 552--Pilot Program to Assist Members of the Armed Forces in
Obtaining Post-Service Employment
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a pilot program to enhance the efforts of the
Department of Defense to provide job placement assistance and
related employment services to eligible members of the Armed
Forces to assist members in obtaining post-service employment
and reduce the amount of unemployment compensation being paid
by the Department of Defense. This section would also require
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report not later than
January 15, 2019, to the appropriate congressional committees
describing the results of the program and whether the programs
achieved the results of assisting members in obtaining post-
service employment, the cost per member, and reduced the amount
of unemployment compensation for ex-service members.
Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education
Section 561--Continuation of Authority to Assist Local Educational
Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees
This section would authorize $25.0 million for the
continuation of the Department of Defense assistance to local
educational agencies that are impacted by the enrollment of
dependent children of military members and Department of
Defense civilian employees.
Section 562--Authority to Employ Non-United States Citizens as Teachers
in Department of Defense Overseas Dependents' School System
This section would allow the Department of Defense to hire
a local national who teaches a host nation language course in
the Department of Defense Overseas School System, if a citizen
of the United States is not available.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense
should demonstrate the efforts undertaken to first find a
United States citizen to teach the native language before
hiring a non-United States citizen.
Section 563--Expansion of Functions of the Advisory Council on
Dependents' Education to Include Domestic Dependent Elementary and
Secondary Schools
This section would expand the functions of the Advisory
Council on Dependents' Education to include the domestic
dependent elementary and secondary schools of the Department of
Defense within the continental United States, Puerto Rico, and
Guam.
Section 564--Support for Efforts to Improve Academic Achievement and
Transition of Military Dependent Students
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
provide grant assistance to non-profit organizations that
provide services to improve the academic achievement of
military dependent students, including those non-profit
organizations whose programs focus on increasing the civic
responsibility of military dependent students and their
understanding of the Federal Government through direct exposure
to the Government.
Section 565--Amendments to the Impact Aid Improvement Act of 2012
This section would amend section 563(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239), to extend, by 2 years, the effective date of the Impact
Aid Improvement Act of 2012. In addition, this section would
amend Public Law 112-239 by including a method to calculate the
taxable value of eligible Federal property that is within the
boundaries of two or more local educational agencies.
Subtitle H--Decorations and Awards
Section 571--Medals for Members of the Armed Forces and Civilian
Employees of the Department of Defense Who Were Killed or Wounded in an
Attack Inspired or Motivated by a Foreign Terrorist Organization
This section would amend the Purple Heart award to include
members killed or wounded in attacks inspired or motivated by
foreign terrorist organizations since September 11, 2001.
Additionally, this section would require a review of the
November 5, 2009, attack at Ford Hood, Texas, to determine as
to whether the death or wounding of any civilian employee of
the Department of Defense or civilian contractor meets the
eligibility criteria for the award of the Secretary of Defense
Medal for the Defense of Freedom.
Section 572--Retroactive Award of Army Combat Action Badge
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
award the Army Combat Action Badge to a person who, while a
member of the Army, participated in combat during which the
person personally engaged, or was personally engaged by, the
enemy at any time during the period beginning on December 7,
1941, and ending on September 18, 2001.
Section 573--Report on Navy Review, Findings, and Actions Pertaining to
Medal of Honor Nomination of Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
submit a report on the Navy review, findings, and actions
pertaining to the Medal of Honor nomination of Sergeant Rafael
Peralta to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Subtitle I--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements
Section 581--Secretary of Defense Review and Report on Prevention of
Suicide Among Members of United States Special Operations Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense,
through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, to conduct a review of
Department of Defense efforts regarding suicide prevention
among members of the Special Operations Forces and their
dependents. The review would include the feasibility of the
application of current Department of Defense suicide prevention
policy guidelines and prevention programs to Special Operations
Forces, current Armed Forces and U.S. Special Operations
Command strategies to reduce suicides among members of the
Special Operations Forces and their dependents, the standards
for responding to attempted or completed suicides, including
guidance and training to assist commanders in addressing
incidents of suicide, among other elements. The Secretary would
be required to submit the report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 582--Inspector General of the Department of Defense Review of
Separation of Members of the Armed Forces Who Made Unrestricted Reports
of Sexual Assault
This section would require the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense to conduct a review to identify all
members of the Armed Forces who, since January 1, 2002, were
separated from the Armed Forces after making an unrestricted
report of sexual assault. The review would seek to determine
the circumstances of and the grounds for the separation and
whether the separation was in retaliation or influenced by the
unrestricted report. The Inspector General would then submit a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives concerning the results of the
review within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 583--Comptroller General Report Regarding Management of
Personnel Records of Members of the National Guard
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to submit a report regarding the management of
personnel records of members of the National Guard. The
Comptroller General should consider the appropriate Federal
role and responsibility in the management of these records, the
extent to which the States have digitized the records, and the
extent of State and Federal agreements for sharing and
management of the records. The report shall be submitted to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than April 1, 2015.
Section 584--Study on Gender Integration in Defense Operation Planning
and Execution
This section would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to conduct a study concerning the integration of
gender into the planning and execution of foreign operations of
the Armed Forces at all levels and to submit the study to the
congressional defense committees not later than 270 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 585--Deadline for Submission of Report Containing Results of
Review of Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity Role in
Sexual Harassment Cases
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit the report required by section 1735 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) to the Committees on Armed Service of the Senate and the
House of Representatives by June 1, 2015.
Subtitle J--Other Matters
Section 591--Inspection of Outpatient Residential Facilities Occupied
by Recovering Service Members
This section would modify the current reporting requirement
from an annual basis to at least once every 2 years.
Section 592--Working Group on Integrated Disability Evaluation System
This section establishes a Working Group to carry out a 3-
year pilot program to evaluate and reform the Integrated
Disability Evaluation System of the Department of Defense and
the Department of Veterans Affairs. The purpose of the pilot
would be to increase process efficiencies, create a
standardized form set, eliminate redundancies, improve existing
process timelines of the Integrated Disability Evaluation
System, increase service member satisfaction, and establish an
information bridge between the E-benefits program and the
MYIDES dashboard.
Section 593--Sense of Congress Regarding Fulfilling Promise to Leave No
Member of the Armed Forces Unaccounted in Afghanistan
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
United States has a responsibility to continue to search for
missing or captured members of the Armed Forces while
transitioning from combat operations in Afghanistan.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
OVERVIEW
The committee continues to believe that robust and flexible
compensation programs are central to maintaining a high-
quality, all-volunteer, combat-ready force. Accordingly, the
committee supports a 1.8 percent military pay raise for fiscal
year 2015, in accordance with current law, in order for
military pay raises to keep pace with the pay increases in the
private sector, as measured by the Employment Cost Index.
The committee includes a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to utilize the services of an independent
organization experienced in grocery retail analysis to assess
the proposed changes to the defense commissary system. The
committee is concerned about the efficacy of proposals to
change the current pricing and business models for the
operation of commissaries in order to accommodate proposed
reductions to the commissary budget. The committee requires
more information from the Department of Defense prior to making
any changes to the underlying structure of the commissary,
particularly given that prior studies commissioned by the
Department of Defense have concluded that pricing adjustments
and changes to stock assortments as proposed by the Department
of Defense would not yield the savings or efficiencies to the
system. Therefore, the committee recommends restoring $100
million in appropriated funds for the commissary to maintain
current operations for fiscal year 2015.
Additionally, the committee is concerned with the raft of
compensation and benefit changes proposed in the President's
budget and the effects of the totality of such proposals on
service members and their families, particularly junior
enlisted personnel. The committee recognizes that the fiscal
environment has changed and the Department continues to face
greater pressure under sequestration-level budget caps, which
are still in effect for fiscal year 2016 and beyond. The
committee, nonetheless, believes that a more prudent approach
to address compensation and retirement proposals would be to
await the recommendations from the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission to better understand the
total impact proposed changes will have on efforts to maintain
the high-quality, All-Volunteer Force. The Commission,
established by Congress in response to a Department of Defense
request, is required to provide a comprehensive approach to
modernize and achieve fiscal sustainability of the compensation
and retirement systems for the Uniformed Services by February
1, 2015. In the meantime, to sustain the current All-Volunteer
Force, the committee continues to support authorities for a
wide array of bonuses, special and incentive pays, and other
compensation benefits for an additional year.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Section 601--Extension of Authority to Provide Temporary Increase in
Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing Under Certain Circumstances
This section would extend for 1 year the authority of the
Secretary of Defense to temporarily increase the rates of basic
allowance for housing in areas impacted by natural disasters or
experiencing a sudden influx of personnel.
Section 602--No Fiscal Year 2015 Increase in Basic Pay for General and
Flag Officers
This section would freeze the basic pay rate for
commissioned officers in the pay grades of O-7 through O-10
during calendar year 2015.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Reserve Forces
This section would extend the authority for the Selected
Reserve reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or
enlistment bonus, special pay for enlisted members assigned to
certain high-priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus
for persons without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment
and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the
Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons
with prior service, income replacement payments for Reserve
Component members experiencing extended and frequent
mobilization for Active Duty service, and the authority to
reimburse travel expenses for inactive duty training outside of
normal commuting distance until December 31, 2015.
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Health Care Professionals
This section would extend the authority for the nurse
officer candidate accession program, repayment of educational
loans for certain health professionals who serve in the
Selected Reserve, the accession and retention bonuses for
psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, the
incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special pay
for Selected Reserve health care professionals in critically
short wartime specialties, the accession bonus for dental
officers, the accession bonus for pharmacy officers, the
accession bonus for medical officers in critically short
wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental
specialist officers in critically short wartime specialties
until December 31, 2015.
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities
for Nuclear Officers
This section would extend the authority for the special pay
for nuclear-qualified officers extending a period of active
service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career
annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2015.
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Title 37
Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities
This section would extend the general bonus authority for
enlisted members, the general bonus authority for officers, the
special bonus and incentive pay authority for nuclear officers,
special aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities, the
special health professions incentive pay and bonus authorities,
hazardous duty pay, assignment pay or special duty pay, skill
incentive pay or proficiency bonus, contracting bonus for
Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets and midshipmen,
and the retention bonus for members with critical military
skills or assigned to high-priority units until December 31,
2015.
Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of
Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays
This section would extend the authority for the aviation
officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the
reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus for
active members, the incentive pay for precommissioning program
members pursuing foreign language proficiency, the accession
bonus for new officers in critical skills, the incentive bonus
for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease
personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for transfer between
Armed Forces, and the accession bonus for officer candidates
until December 31, 2015.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation
Section 621--Authority to Enter into Contracts for the Provision of
Relocation Services
The section would allow the Secretary of Defense to
authorize a base commander to enter into a contract with an
appropriate organization to provide relocation services to
members of the Armed Forces.
Subtitle D--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality
Benefits and Operations
Section 631--Authority of Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities to
Enter into Contracts with Other Federal Agencies and Instrumentalities
to Provide and Obtain Certain Goods and Services
This section would amend section 2492 of title 10, United
States Code, to provide the Department of Defense authority to
provide or obtain food services beneficial to the efficient
management and operation of the dining facilities on military
installations offering food services to service members.
The committee is providing the authority to the Department
of Defense to authorize the Air Force's current ``Food
Transformation Initiative.'' However, the committee is
concerned that the Air Force had initiated this program
contrary to the limitations under section 2492 of title 10. The
committee agrees with the Comptroller General's decision that
the legal interpretation of section 2942 by the Air Force and
the subsequent decision by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to support such an interpretation was wrong; and that
the program did not meet either the spirit or the letter of the
law. The committee cautions the services and the Secretary of
Defense from initiating any additional programs that could be
construed as an effort to pass appropriated funds through a
non-appropriated fund instrumentality. In addition, the
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to restrain the
services from additional creative legal interpretations of
section 2942 of title 10. The committee reiterates that the
intent of the change to section 2942 is to allow the
continuation of the food transformation program, and should not
be interpreted to allow further innovative legal
interpretations of the provision.
Section 632--Review of Management, Food, and Pricing Options for
Defense Commissary System
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a review, utilizing the services of an independent
organization experienced in grocery retail analysis, of the
defense commissary system. The results of the review shall be
submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives by February 1, 2015.
Section 633--Restriction on Implementing Any Department of Defense
Policy to Limit, Restrict, or Ban the Sale of Certain Items on Military
Installations
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretaries of the military departments from implementing
any new policy that limits, restricts or bans the sale of any
legal consumer product category sold in exchanges or
commissaries as of January 1, 2014.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 641--Anonymous Survey of Members of the Armed Forces Regarding
Their Preferences for Military Pay and Benefits
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
carry out an anonymous survey of random members of the Armed
Forces regarding pay and benefits, including the value that
members place on forms of compensation, relative to one
another, including basic pay, allowances for housing, bonuses
and special pay, healthcare benefits, and retirement pay.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee is resolute in ensuring that the Military
Health System remains a top priority for the Department of
Defense during the post-conflict shift to readiness training
and force reduction. The committee recognizes Department
efforts in preventative medicine, clinical and translational
research, public health initiatives, and pioneering the health
care team model. It is imperative that these critical areas
continue progressing with the same level of commitment in this
changing landscape in order to sustain the medical readiness of
our service members. The committee encourages the Department to
maintain this commitment to solving the complex physical and
psychological implications of wartime service for the
foreseeable future.
The committee remains focused on making certain that the
Department cost-saving measures are centered on achieving the
most efficient Military Health System possible before
significant cost-sharing burdens are placed on TRICARE
beneficiaries. The current Department proposal to fundamentally
alter the structure of TRICARE and increase associated fees is
concerning in light of concurrently proposed reductions in
compensation. The committee notes the Department efforts toward
reorganization of the Military Health System, but remains
unconvinced that current implementation efforts will result in
the projected cost savings. To that end, the committee includes
requests for a report to further clarify Defense Health Agency
implementation plans and a review of Defense Health Agency
implementation progress by the Comptroller General of the
United States. The committee is also concerned that the
Department's plan to reduce or realign Military Treatment
Facilities will further shift the health care burden to the
purchased care sector and ultimately increase costs.
The committee seeks to ensure continued access to care and
adoption of best practices during the Military Health System
reorganization. The committee requests reviews on TRICARE
reimbursement to sole community hospitals, graduate medical
education billets, and the reduction of TRICARE Prime service
areas. Moreover, the committee directs the execution of a pilot
program focused on the improvement of patient medication use
and outcomes through use of commercial best practices.
The committee is encouraged by the current downtrend in the
suicide rate of the Armed Forces and commends the Department's
diligence in addressing this tragic issue. However, although
the overall trend is downward, there are certain communities of
service members who remain at high risk. The committee strongly
encourages the Department to continue training, research, and
therapeutics to address psychological health and resilience.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
AIR FORCE CRITICAL CARE TRAINING
The committee recognizes the efforts by the Air Force's
Critical Care Transport Teams (CCATT) to provide vital care
during the transport of members of the armed services who are
critically injured. The committee encourages the Department to
continue supporting the Air Force Centers for the Sustainment
of Trauma and Readiness Skills (C-STARS), the training
platforms for the CCATT. The C-STARS provide a unique and
realistic environment for training Air Force personnel who
treat critically injured members of the armed services. The
committee supports the groundbreaking research and specialized
training conducted at C-STARS, which has improved the
survivability rate of critically wounded service members. The
committee encourages the Department to continue investing is
this crucial capability.
Canine Therapy for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain
Injury
The committee recognizes the Department of Defense for
their efforts to research and document the use of canine
therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain
injury. The committee understands that while still
experimental, canine therapy has shown to be effective in
treating the psychological symptoms of these conditions. The
committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue
researching and providing canine therapy for psychological as
well as other physical conditions affecting the members of the
Armed Forces.
Collaboration on Trauma Research
Last year, the committee recognized that advancements in
trauma care are the results of research conducted across the
public-private spectrum by Federal, academic, and private
institutions, and encouraged the Department of Defense to work
with other Federal agencies and the private sector to establish
a trauma clinical research repository to share and maximize
critical trauma research data. The committee recognizes the
significant advances that the services and the Department have
made in trauma research and treatment on the battlefield that
would be of great benefit to the civilian sector. The committee
believes that such transition necessitates a whole-of-
government approach that requires leadership beyond the
Department of Defense. However, the committee encourages the
Department of Defense to continue to work with other Federal,
State, and local governments, as well as academic and private
institutions to advance trauma research and treatment which has
a direct impact on readiness of the force.
Deployment Health for Women
The committee recognizes the unique work that the Army's
Women's Health Task Force (WHTF) is doing to address the
specific gender health needs of women in the military. The task
force assessed and made recommendations on six areas of concern
for women in a deployed environment. These include women's
health education, barriers to seeking care, uniform and
personal protective gear design, psychosocial effects of
deployment, effects of deployment on children and families, and
sexual harassment and assault response and prevention. Women's
deployment issues are not unique to this force, which is why
the committee required a Government Accountability Office (GAO)
review of women-specific health services and treatment for
female members of the Armed Forces in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
The committee believes that the information, expertise and
experience of the WHTF, as well as the assessment by the GAO,
should be used as the basis to ensure that the specific gender
health needs of women in all types of deployed environments are
being met. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an assessment on the specific gender health needs of
women in a deployed environment to ensure standardization of
education and training in women's hygiene and gynecological
management to enhance readiness for female members; ensure that
women's health issues are included in leadership training and
educational programs; provide Clinical Practice Guidelines to
establish a standardized level of care in a deployed
environment; and ensure that all services have the ability to
provide a minimum level of education and training to address
the specific gender health needs of women in a deployed
environment.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report
the results of the assessment and implementation of policies or
programs necessary to meet the specific gender health needs of
women in various deployed environments to the congressional
defense committees by April 31, 2015. The assessment should
also address the research gaps identified by the Women's Health
Research Interest Group, and what efforts have been undertaken
to develop a repository of peer-reviewed research articles
related to health issues for female service member,
particularly those in a deployed environment.
Early Autism Diagnosis and Assistance for Families
The committee recognizes that with early intervention a
child diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder may make
significant progress, potentially increasing language and
social skills as well as mitigating the development of
problematic behaviors. The committee encourages the Department
to continue to assist military families with autistic children
to ensure the availability of the full and expanding range of
early evidence-based risk assessment and diagnostics, early
intervention and treatment approaches.
Healthy Base Initiative
The committee recognizes the efforts by the Department of
Defense to improve the physical and mental health of members of
the Armed Forces through the Healthy Base Initiative. This
program promotes the health and wellness of service members,
families, and civilians through education on how to improve
nutritional choices, increase physical activity, reduce
obesity, and stop smoking. The committee encourages the
Department to incorporate the latest in scientific research on
topics such as the benefit of antioxidant-rich foods and the
detrimental impact of smokeless tobacco products, into
education strategies for the service members and medical
personnel. The committee further encourages the Department to
consider a review of continuing medical education training for
content related to these public health initiatives. The
committee supports these efforts to promote and develop healthy
lifestyle choices that will positively affect the health and
readiness of the Armed Forces and their families.
Infectious Disease Surveillance Testing
The committee recognizes the necessity of surveillance
testing for certain infectious diseases, such as Human
Immunodeficiency Virus, to maintain the readiness of the Armed
Forces. The committee understands that the medical community
continues to advance innovative methods of detection for such
diseases. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
continuously review its infectious disease screening
methodology in comparison with current medical practice
guidelines to provide the most current advances in testing to
ensure the readiness of military service members.
Integrated Scheduling System
The committee is aware that the Department of Veterans
Affairs conducted a competition for medical appointment
scheduling systems in 2013 that required entrants to
demonstrate their systems' ability to achieve over 200
requirements and metrics with a focus on integration with the
Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture
Electronic Health Record system. The committee notes that the
Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs
simultaneously provide medical care to a small population that
overlaps both health care systems. Furthermore, the committee
notes that the Department of Defense Healthcare Management
System Modernization (DHMSM) program office is currently
working on an effort to replace its legacy health information
system with a commercial solution that is modern and
interoperable with the Department of Veterans Affairs. As the
DHMSM program office develops its requirements for a final
solicitation, the committee expects the program office to keep
the committee informed on the requirements for the new system,
to include the feasibility of having a requirement for an
integrated scheduling system that is interoperable with the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare
in Colorado Springs
The committee is aware that the Defense Health Agency has
identified Colorado Springs, Colorado as the fastest growing
Enhanced Multi-Service Market (EMSM) for healthcare in the
country. As such, demand for healthcare may exceed the current
capacity of Department of Defense and Department of Veterans
Affairs facilities in the region. Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs-civilian partnerships that can
serve both active duty service members, their families, and
veterans have the potential to be an effective, cost-saving
approach to enhancing access to and the quality of healthcare
services provided by the Department of Defense, Department of
Veterans Affairs, and the private sector. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to analyze the
potential benefits of a partnership in the Colorado Springs
area in order to better address the growing need for healthcare
services. This analysis should consider the challenges that
arise from the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of
Defense having different planning and budget timelines,
authorizations and approval processes, personnel staffing
authorities and requirements, pharmaceutical policies, clinical
scheduling policies and procedures, management structure and
performance evaluations, and provide solutions to address these
challenge to best leverage the capabilities of the two
Departments as well as the civilian community. The analysis
should consider both the benefits and challenges seen in
previous efforts to consolidate Department of Defense and
Department of Veterans Affairs' facilities, as well as current
joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs'
healthcare projects. The Secretary of Defense should report the
results of the analysis to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 120
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Joint Medical Kits
The committee recognizes the work of the service medical
commands and personnel to improve combat casualty care and
reduce combat mortality over the last decade, which has
significantly reduced casualties in combat. The committee
applauds the Defense Health Agency and its Defense Medical
Materiel Program Office (DMMPO) for ongoing internal efforts
and collaboration with industry to bolster combat casualty
care, especially through enhancements in tactical medicine. The
committee is particularly encouraged to learn of DMMPO's
pursuit of a Joint First Aid Kit, and supports the prompt
fielding of a Joint First Aid Kit. The committee also supports
efforts to assess the requirements for a Joint Combat Lifesaver
Kit and Joint Vehicle Medical Kits. Joint kits would allow for
commonality across services to promote safety and efficacy
during joint operations.
Military and Academic Research Partnership
The committee recognizes that after over a decade of
sustained combat, there have been many strides made toward
providing service members the most current clinical medical
treatment. However, the committee believes that it is important
for both the military services and academia to collaborate
toward a common goal of continuing to provide our service
members the best medical treatment available. The use of data
driven research by military and academic partnerships will
foster innovative ways to study and monitor medical and health
issues impacting readiness.
The committee believes that along with a whole-of-
government approach, it is critical to include academia in the
effort to improve the readiness of our service members. The
committee urges the Department of Defense to continue working
with Federal, State, local, non-profit, and academic
institutions to expand the network of support needed to promote
advances in clinical medicine to improve the readiness of our
Armed Forces.
Military Contributions to Breast Cancer Research
The committee supports the Department of Defense efforts in
improving the prevention and treatment of breast cancer through
research and clinical care. Section 737 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239)
directed the Department to conduct a study on the incidence of
breast cancer among members of the Armed Forces serving on
Active Duty. The resulting report is to include data important
to translating this research into clinical practice. The
committee urges the Department to provide the results of this
study in an expeditious manner so they may be used, in
conjunction with other federally funded sources of research-
based recommendations, to guide future Department of Defense
health policy in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer.
Military Health Care Team Model
The committee recognizes that the Armed Forces utilize a
health care model that represents the full spectrum of health
care professionals. The committee notes that this health care
model includes physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and
clinical nurse specialists which maximizes taxpayer dollars,
especially now in an austere fiscal environment. This health
care team model has been critical to the success of military
medicine in the deployed setting, resulting in an unprecedented
survival rate of service members in combat. In addition, the
committee believes that the training these medical
professionals receive creates rewarding employment
opportunities that provide for a seamless transition from
military service to the private sector when these service
members transition back to civilian life. The committee
continues to support the efforts of military medicine to
improve quality of care and gain greater efficiencies in the
system.
Military Innovations in Suicide Research
The committee commends the hard work of the Army Study to
Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (Army STARRS).
This study adds to a growing body of research that seeks to
decrease suicide by improving the understanding of suicide risk
factors as well as protective factors. The committee recognizes
that the Department of Defense stands as a leader in the fight
against suicide which affects not only service members and
families, but an increasing number of the Nation's youth. The
tragic rate of military suicide has highlighted the complex and
often poorly understood psychological factors that lead to
suicidal behavior. The Army STARRS research to date is
contributing to the understanding of the importance of
resilience in enhancing skills such as problem-solving, impulse
control, and proper coping mechanisms. The committee commends
the Army for taking a proactive stance on addressing suicide
among service members and their families, and looks forward to
future Army STARRS research outcomes to help inform the
Department of Defense in developing targeted strategies to
build resilience in the members of the Armed Forces and improve
the understanding of psychological health.
Report on Implementation Plans for the Defense Health Agency
The Department of Defense has provided the committee with
three submissions on its plans for implementation of the
Defense Health Agency (DHA), which became operational on
October 1, 2013. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
noted in its review of the first two DHA implementation plans,
the Department's submissions did not include critical
information concerning the DHA's staffing requirements, cost
estimates, and performance measures. In its response to the
GAO's report, the Department stated that it would address many
of these issues in its third submission to Congress. However,
as the GAO noted in subsequent testimony, the Department's
third submission did not fully incorporate this information. In
addition, the Department's third submission did not include
sufficient information concerning its education and training
shared service, including a full explanation of its purpose and
goals. As a full and complete implementation plan for the DHA
is necessary to help ensure the Department achieves the goals
of its reform of the Military Health System (MHS), the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives by January 31, 2015, containing the
following information:
(1) Performance measures for each objective and shared
service that are clear, quantifiable, objective, and include a
baseline assessment of current performance, and if such
information has not yet been developed, a timeline for
developing and submitting such measures in the future;
(2) An explanation of the potential sources of cost savings
from the implementation of its shared services projects,
including estimates of cost savings for each product line
within the respective shared services;
(3) A baseline assessment of the current number of
military, civilian, and contractor personnel currently working
within the MHS headquarters and an estimate for DHA at full
operating capability, including estimates of changes in
contractor full-time equivalents; and
(4) An explanation of the purpose and goals of the medical
education and training shared service with regard to its role
in improving the cost efficiency of delivering training,
including the challenges it will address, the practices it will
put in place to address these challenges, and the resulting
cost savings.
Review of Defense Health Agency Progress
After years of studies, reviews, and assessments of the
governance structure of the Military Health System (MHS), the
Department of Defense established the Defense Health Agency
(DHA) on October 1, 2013. The DHA assumed responsibility for,
among other things, enterprise-wide common tasks handled by the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force medical departments, known as
shared services, as well as their common business and clinical
processes. The changes to the design of the system along with
enhanced accountability, will, according to the Department,
enable continuous performance improvement and reduce the
projected cost growth of the Defense Health Program. While the
Department has reported significant progress in the
establishment of this new agency, as well as efficiencies
achieved, it remains unclear what specific improvements have
been accomplished and if the Department remains on track to
attain its savings and performance goals. Therefore, as this
new agency reaches a year in existence, the committee directs
the Comptroller General of the United States to review the
progress that the Department has made in achieving its goals
within this year. More specifically, the review should include
at a minimum a review of the Department's progress in (1)
achieving cost savings, (2) developing performance measures,
and (3) determining accurate staffing levels. The Comptroller
General should issue a final report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by
September 30, 2015, and brief preliminary results to the
committees by April 1, 2015.
Review of TRICARE Reimbursement Rules for Sole Community Hospitals
The committee recognizes the vital role of sole community
hospitals (SCH) in providing high-quality health care for
service members stationed at rural military installations. The
committee is aware of recent TRICARE reimbursement policy
changes for SCHs and would like to understand the impact of the
change on access to care for service members and their
families. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to review TRICARE's change in
reimbursement rules for sole community hospitals. The review
should include at a minimum:
(1) The extent to which TRICARE's change in reimbursement
rules for SCH affects access to these facilities by service
members and their families;
(2) The extent that TRICARE's change in reimbursement rules
for SCH compares to the Medicare change in reimbursement rules
for SCHs; and
(3) The extent to which the Defense Health Agency is
monitoring the effects of TRICARE reimbursement rules changes
on SCH and the subsequent access to care for service members
and dependents.
The Comptroller General should submit the results of the
review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives not later than March 1, 2015.
Sleep Health
The committee recognizes that sleep disruption is a
contributing risk factor to the onset and severity of major
mental health problems such as depression, bipolar disorder,
substance abuse, posttraumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain
injury, and suicide.
The committee commends the Department for its initial steps
to leverage investments by the National Institutes of Health in
the development of the Pain Assessment Tool and Outcomes
Registry for its use throughout the military health system. The
committee recommends the continued implementation of the Sleep,
Activity, and Nutrition program which works to ensure a strong
and resilient military community. The committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of the prevalence
of sleep and circadian disturbances among active military
personnel and its relationship between mental health, traumatic
brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, chronic pain and
fatigue, substance abuse, suicide, depression, cognitive
function, and military performance and readiness.
Surgical Critical Care Institute
The committee is aware of the important translational
research conducted by the Surgical Critical Care Initiative.
The Initiative, a partnership of Federal, academic, and non-
governmental organizations, strives to improve the care of
wounded warriors through the investigation and mitigation of
the short- and long-term physiologic effects of catastrophic
injuries. As a result of the unprecedented survival rate of
combat troops with complex and extreme life-threatening
injuries, the Initiative has applied the lessons learned from
the care of these injuries to develop biomarkers and
decisionmaking algorithms that can be applied to combat-wounded
and other critically ill surgical patients. The committee
applauds the efforts of the Department of Defense toward
continuing to advance the care of critical injuries which will
improve lifesaving measures on future battlefields and
translate to civilian trauma treatment.
US Family Health Plans
The committee is aware of the important role of the US
Family Health Plans in providing quality health care, which
consistently exceeds customer satisfaction expectations, to
military beneficiaries. The committee notes that the Department
of Defense strives to provide quality health care to its
beneficiary population, which has grown significantly over the
last decade. Given the budget challenges the Department is
facing, it is important that all segments of the military
health system make every effort to ensure that they are
providing the most cost-effective quality services available.
The committee recognizes the contributions provided by the US
Family Health Plans to the health of service members and their
families, particularly retirees. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission to address the role of the US Family
Health Plan during deliberations regarding the future military
health benefit.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits
Section 701--Mental Health Assessments for Members of the Armed Forces
This section would amend section 1074m of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide
person-to-person mental health screenings once during each 180-
day period in which a member is deployed.
Section 702--Clarification of Provision of Food to Former Members and
Dependents Not Receiving Inpatient Care in Military Medical Treatment
Facilities
This section would amend section 1078b of title 10, United
States Code, to allow former members and their dependents to
receive food and beverages at no cost for those who are
receiving certain outpatient care in military medical treatment
facilities.
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration
Section 711--Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between the Military
Departments and Non-Military Health Care Entities
This section would permit the Secretaries of the military
departments to establish cooperative health care agreements
between military installations and local and regional non-
military health care entities.
Section 712--Surveys on Continued Viability of TRICARE Standard and
TRICARE Extra
This section would change the frequency of the reports of
the reviews submitted to Congress by the Comptroller General of
the United States regarding the processes, procedures, and
analysis used by the Department of Defense to determine the
adequacy of the number of health care providers who accept
TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra.
Section 713--Limitation on Transfer or Elimination of Graduate Medical
Education Billets
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
transferring or eliminating a graduate medical education billet
from a military medical treatment facility unless the Secretary
conducts a review of at least 2 years of the implementation of
the reform of the administration of the Military Health System,
examines recruiting and retention of medical professionals with
regard to the Department's graduate medical education programs,
determines the assignment of such billets, and certifies to the
congressional defense committees that any proposed transfer of
a billet meets the needs of the military departments and
patients.
Section 714--Review of Military Health System Modernization Study
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the
military medical treatment facility modernization study
directed by the Resource Management Decision of the Department
of Defense MP-D-01. The report would include the study data
used by the Secretary and the results of the study with regard
to recommendations to restructure or realign military medical
treatment facilities. Further, this section would require the
Comptroller General of the United States, not later than 180
days after the Secretary submits the report required, to submit
a report to the congressional defense committees on the report
submitted by the Secretary of Defense, to include an assessment
of the study methodology and data used by the Secretary. The
Secretary would be prohibited from realigning or restructuring
a military medical treatment facility until 120 days following
the date the Comptroller General is required to submit the
report.
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters
Section 721--Extension of Authority for Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund
This section would extend the authority for the Joint
Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Facility Demonstration Fund until September 30, 2016.
Section 722--Designation and Responsibilities of Senior Medical Advisor
for Armed Forces Retirement Home
This section would designate the Deputy Director of the
Defense Health Agency to be the senior medical advisor for the
Armed Forces Retirement Home to reflect a change in the
oversight organizational structure subsequent to the
establishment of the Defense Health Agency. It also requires
the homes to be in compliance with national recognized health
care standards.
Section 723--Research Regarding Alzheimer's Disease
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
conduct research on Alzheimer's disease.
Section 724--Acquisition Strategy for Health Care Professional Staffing
Services
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop and implement an acquisition strategy for contracting
health care professional services within military medical
treatment facilities. The Secretary would be required to submit
a report to the congressional defense committees not later than
April 1, 2015, on the status of implementation of the strategy.
Section 725--Pilot Program on Medication Therapy Management Under
TRICARE Program
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to carry
out a pilot program for at least 2 years at not less than three
locations to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of
including medication therapy management as part of the TRICARE
program. This program would be focused on improving patient
medication use and outcomes using best commercial practices in
medication therapy management and would quantify effectiveness
by measuring patient medication use and outcomes as well as
health care costs. The Secretary of Defense would be required
to submit a report of the results of the pilot program to the
congressional defense committees not later than 30 months after
the program commences.
Section 726--Report on Reduction of Prime Service Areas
This section would amend section 732 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239), as amended by section 701 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), to
require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the status of the reduction of
the availability of TRICARE Prime. The required report would
include details regarding the impact to beneficiaries of the
reduction of TRICARE Prime availability, including any increase
in cost to beneficiaries and the estimated cost savings to the
Department of Defense.
Section 727--Comptroller General Report on Transition of Care for Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct an assessment of the transition of
care for post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain
injury, to include changes to pharmaceutical treatment plans
and the benefits and challenges of combining the formularies
across the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans
Affairs. The Comptroller General would be required to submit a
report on the assessment to the congressional defense
committees and the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House
of Representatives and the Senate by April 1, 2015.
Section 728--Briefing on Hospitals in Arrears in Payments to Department
of Defense
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within
60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to brief the
congressional defense committees on the process used by the
Defense Health Agency to collect payment from hospitals outside
the Department of Defense. The briefing would include a list of
each hospital that is more than 90 days in arrears in payment
to the Secretary.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
OVERVIEW
As part of the committee's long-term institutional reform
effort, the committee is examining opportunities to improve the
Department of Defense acquisition system. Despite the
significant improvements made in the Weapon Systems Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) and other recent
acquisition reform legislation, the committee believes further
improvements must be made to the Department's business
practices, particularly at a time when defense resources for
developing and acquiring weapon systems, products, and services
are increasingly constrained. In this broad oversight and
legislative effort, the committee aims to identify and drive
out disincentives that increase cost and schedule of major
programs and delay delivery of capabilities to the warfighter.
The committee believes that any lasting reforms related to
defense acquisitions will not be successful without a solid
partnership between both the House of Representatives and
Senate committees of jurisdiction, the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, each of the military departments, and the defense
industrial base. The committee looks forward to working with
all stakeholders on this comprehensive effort.
In addition, the committee notes that an annual inventory
of Department of Defense contracts for services is mandated by
section 2330a(c) of title 10, United States Code (initially
codified by section 807 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181)). Although an
inventory is being provided, the committee continues to be
disappointed that the Department of Defense has not fully
implemented the requirement and is failing to analyze the data
or otherwise use the mandate for collection of data to inform
decision-making. The committee remains convinced that, if
properly conducted, the inventory would be an important tool to
provide transparency in Government contracting and would also
be a beneficial tool for decision-makers in planning,
programming, and budgeting for the Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to
continue to not only improve data collection related to
services contracting, but to also conduct analysis of that data
to identify wasteful or excessive spending, duplication of
efforts, opportunities to implement efficiencies, and areas of
risk in the defense industrial base. Furthermore, to complement
the committee's effort to improve the processes by which the
Department of Defense acquires weapon systems, the committee,
elsewhere in this title, includes a provision that would direct
the Comptroller General of the United States to undertake a
body of work to identify further opportunities to improve the
Department's processes to acquire contracted services.
In addition, elsewhere in this report the committee
includes a provision that would support the intent of the
Marine Corps to streamline procurement of, and its fielding
strategy for, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) increment
1.1, and believes this program could potentially serve as an
example for future major defense acquisition program reform.
However, the committee notes this streamlined approach to ACV
increment 1.1 is contingent on mature technology and validated,
stabilized requirements. The committee will continue to closely
monitor this program under the auspices of the committee's
ongoing comprehensive reform effort.
Furthermore, as part of the ongoing effort to review the
processes that often keep the Department of Defense from
operating efficiently, and unintentionally create barriers to
meaningful small business participation in the defense
industrial base, the committee has worked closely with the
House Committee on Small Business and the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs. As a result of this bipartisan cooperation,
the committee includes provisions in this title that would
remove duplicative processes, erase meaningless distinctions
between competing programs, leverage procurement best
practices, and better use the programs already in place.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Acquisitions Involving Reverse Auctions
The committee notes that there may be substantial benefits
to contracting for goods and services through reverse auction
procedures. However, the committee is concerned that Department
of Defense personnel, particularly those that are not formally
designated within the acquisition workforce, may lack
sufficient training and experience to fully realize these
benefits. Without adequate training on the benefits and risks
of utilizing reverse auction procedures as a purchasing method,
acquisition personnel might miss opportunities to stipulate
best-value determinations, encourage small business
participation, or raise other non-price considerations.
Two studies by the Army Corps of Engineers have posited
that reverse auctions for construction services do not provide
savings to the Government and that they increase risk
associated with such projects. While the Corps has discontinued
the use of reverse auctions in this area, other agencies
continue to use reverse auctions for construction services. A
third study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO-14-
408) found that there was inadequate competition in nearly 40
percent of governmental acquisitions conducted using reverse
auctions. The report recommended that the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget take steps to amend the Federal
Acquisition Regulations regarding agencies' use of reverse
auctions and to issue government-wide guidance for maximizing
competition and savings when using reverse auctions.
The committee is also concerned that reverse auction
procedures and lowest price technically acceptable procurement
methodologies which are aimed solely at making a purchase at
the lowest price, may not be the best way to procure personal
protective equipment and organizational clothing and individual
equipment, such as body armor components, combat helmets,
protective eyewear, fire resistant and cold weather clothing
and footwear. Using price as the deciding factor in the
procurement of such items may lead to products of an inferior
quality for the warfighter, and have long-term deleterious
effects on the industrial base and the willingness of private
sector firms to develop products and services for the
Department. The committee believes that there are contracting
circumstances where best value should be considered a higher
criteria than lowest price.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to review the
training and education provided to Department of Defense
personnel regarding the use of reverse auction procurement
methodologies, and to revise such training and education, as
may be necessary, to ensure that Department personnel
understand the benefits, risks, and appropriate applications of
reverse auction procedures and lowest price and technically
acceptable. The Under Secretary should report to the
congressional defense committees, not later than March 2, 2015,
on the findings of this review.
Briefing on Impact of Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial
Sales on Industrial Base Sustainment
The committee is aware that Department of Defense officials
have suggested foreign military sales (FMS) and direct
commercial sales (DCS) as a means for the private defense
industrial base to sustain operations in light of Budget
Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) mandated
reductions in procurement spending. The committee is concerned
that long lead time and current world events make FMS and DCS
unreliable or financially infeasible for many vendors,
restricting a significant a path towards sustainability and
adding an unacceptable level of risk to critical sectors of the
industrial base. The committee is further concerned that a
perception of available FMS and DCS opportunities may impact
service planning to sustain high risk sectors of the industrial
base.
Therefore, the committee directs, within 180 days, the
Secretary of Defense to brief the congressional defense
committees on the levels of FMS and DCS factored into
sustainment plans for the private defense industrial base for
major acquisition programs. The briefing should include an
analysis of whether these levels of FMS and DCS are anticipated
to be met over the remaining years of the BCA budget caps; any
sectors or major acquisition programs with limited access to
FMS and DCS; and reason for limited access.
Briefing on the Impact of the Budget Control Act on High Risk Sectors
of the Defense Industrial Base
The committee is aware that reductions under the Budget
Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) and the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2013 (division A of Public Law 113-67) will
reduce procurement spending over the next several years,
leaving some sectors of the national technical and industrial
base with a limited number of viable suppliers. The committee
is concerned that the scheduled end of some major acquisition
programs, combined with enacted defense funding reductions
could result in continued financial losses to several high-risk
sectors, which could force consolidations, decisions to forego
defense contracts, and facility closures.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to specifically examine the impacts of such budget reductions
as part of the Department's sector-by-sector, tier-by-tier
review of the defense industrial base and to ensure that the
periodic assessments of the national technical and industrial
base, required by section 2505 of title 10, United States Code,
include consideration of these reductions. Furthermore, the
committee directs the Secretary to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees, not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, providing an analysis of
sectors and tiers of the private industrial base found to be at
highest risk and how the risk assessment has changed since
enactment of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2013; an assessment of which additional sectors
and tiers that might be considered high risk as a result of
those Acts; and steps necessary to protect those high risk
sectors and tiers.
Comptroller General Assessment of Department of Defense Processes for
the Acquisition of Services
To complement the committee's effort to improve the
processes by which the Department of Defense acquires weapon
systems, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to undertake a body of work to identify further
opportunities to improve the Department's processes to acquire
contracted services.
Over the last decade, Congress has provided new tools and
capabilities intended to improve the Department's processes and
oversight of services acquisitions. These include requiring the
establishment of a management structure and review process for
high-dollar services; designation of senior managers
responsible for services contract approval and oversight within
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics and the military departments; and the
mandating of an annual inventory of contracted services to
assist in workforce planning and budgeting.
The committee notes that the Department has undertaken
several actions to improve its approach to acquiring services,
most recently in the Department's Better Buying Power
initiatives. Nevertheless, in a series of reports issued over
the past year, the Comptroller General found that the
Department still did not know the current status of services
acquisitions in terms of the volume or type of services being
acquired, lacked reliable data on the projected spending for
services, had not fully embraced total workforce management
approaches, and had not fully leveraged its buying power
through strategic sourcing. With services acquisition
accounting for more than half of the Department's contracting
efforts, the committee believes that a holistic assessment of
the myriad processes that play a role in acquiring services is
needed if the Department is to fundamentally improve its
efficiency and effectiveness.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to
continue monitoring the Department's efforts in this area and
to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the processes and
procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of
services to identify opportunities to improve these processes
and procedures. An initial report on the assessment should be
provided to the congressional defense committees not later than
March 1, 2016, with follow-up efforts subsequently briefed to
the committees as phases of the assessment are completed. At a
minimum, the assessment should examine:
(1) The requirements generation, budgeting, and contracting
processes associated with the acquisition of services;
(2) How such processes interface with the Department's
strategic human capital planning processes;
(3) The Department's efforts to identify and, as
appropriate, enhance the skills and capabilities needed by the
workforce to acquire and oversee contracted services;
(4) The extent to which the Department is acquiring
contracted services using strategic sourcing; and
(5) The extent to which the Department's annual budget
request and future budget projections for contracted services
are based on current, accurate, and reliable data.
Comptroller General Review of Compliance with Limitations on Contract
Services Spending
The committee notes that a Government Accountability Office
review found that the Department of Defense failed to adhere to
the enacted limitations on contracted services in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), exceeding the limitations by more than $1.0 billion in
fiscal year 2012. Moreover, guidance for adherence to the
extension of the limitations for fiscal year 2014 has yet to be
issued. The committee is concerned that the Department does not
have adequate policies, procedures, and controls in place to
enforce limitations on the annual amounts expended on
contracted services.
The committee is also concerned that not all contracted
services are being subjected to the spending limitations
because of the exclusion of contracted services involving
Economy Act transfers between and within Department of Defense
components. Also, because of the disparity between the levels
of contracted services captured in the Inventory of Contracts
for Services, required under section 2330a of title 10, United
States Code, and what the Department budgets for contracted
services, the committee concludes that the Department does not
deliberately plan for most contracted services. At the same
time the Department exceeded its spending limitations on
contracted services, the Department furloughed a majority of
its civilian workforce and, in the case of many Department of
Defense components, under-executed civilian spending.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to report to the congressional defense committees on the
Department's compliance with section 808 of Public Law 112-81,
as amended by section 802 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) for each of the
fiscal years the limitation has been in effect. The Comptroller
General should submit an initial report by October 30, 2014,
that covers fiscal years 2012-13. The final report should be
submitted by September 30, 2015, and address the Department's
compliance during fiscal year 2014. The final report should
include an assessment of the efforts by the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) and the Department's financial management
and acquisition communities to implement effective control
mechanisms for contracted services spending. Additionally, the
Comptroller General's review should assess steps taken by
defense components in executing the reductions to contractor
performance of inherently governmental functions, closely
associated with inherently governmental functions, and staff
augmentation workload in accordance with the provisions of
section 808 of Public Law 112-81.
Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Trusted Foundry and
Supply Chain Risk Management Programs
The committee recognizes that trusted components, both
hardware and software, are vital to ensure the security and
integrity of defense systems. To that end, the Department of
Defense established a Trusted Foundry program to ensure a
dedicated supply of trusted microelectronics for highly
sensitive defense applications, as well as a trusted supplier
program to provide less advanced microelectronics that still
require a high degree of trust. The committee also notes that
section 254 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) required the
Department to develop a Trusted Defense Systems Strategy to
ensure that those capabilities were aligned with the policy
framework needed to enforce the use of those capabilities.
After 10 years of this capability and policy framework, the
committee believes that it is important to review the Trusted
Foundry program, the Trusted Suppliers certification program,
and other supply chain risk management to determine their
effectiveness and understand if updates or changes are
necessary. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to review and submit a report to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than February 1, 2015, on the
Department's program related to trusted foundry, trusted
suppliers, and other supply chain risk management activities to
ensure that the program strategy, contracting vehicles, and
execution are fully supported by clear policy guidance from the
Department, that such guidance is being followed, and to make
any recommendations for needed improvement.
Comptroller General Review of Rulemaking Practices of the Department of
Defense
The committee is aware that the interim rulemaking process
of the Department of Defense allows for the expedited
promulgations of rules in certain cases, and that numerous
factors lead the Department of Defense to issue interim rules
in lieu of proposed rules. The committee notes that interim
rules may be issued for a variety of reasons when cause can be
shown that a standard public notice-and-comment period would be
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
Such causes include responses to emergencies, expedient
measures to avert threats to public health or safety, and the
need to make minor technical or insubstantial changes to
regulations. However, the committee is also aware that
overreliance on the interim rulemaking process may limit
industry participation because that process may not afford
opportunities to consider industry comments before, or even
after, the final rule takes effect.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to evaluate the Department's rulemaking
practices for promulgating acquisition regulations, and
specifically the issuance of interim rules rather than the
issuance of proposed rules. The evaluation should include:
(1) A brief description of current rulemaking procedures,
including relevant provisions for notice-and-comment;
(2) An assessment of the frequency with which the interim
rulemaking process is used by the Department of Defense to
promulgate acquisition regulations;
(3) Descriptions of the most prevalent good cause
justifications given by the Department for using rulemaking
options other than the proposed rulemaking process; and
(4) Any recommendations the Comptroller General may have
for improving constructive communications between the
Department and industry during the rulemaking process.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to brief the
House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2015,
on the results of this evaluation.
Export Controls and the Small Arms Industrial Base
As part of the ongoing Export Control Reform Initiative,
the committee supports expeditious progress toward amending the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to revise
Category I of the U.S. Munitions List (USML) to describe more
precisely the firearms and related articles warranting control
on the USML. Category I of the USML currently covers firearms
(other than non-combat shotguns with barrel length of 18 inches
or longer) with a caliber up to .50 inches, combat shotguns,
close assault weapons systems, and related parts, components,
and accessories. The committee understands that draft
regulations to revise this Category were developed more than 2
years ago but have not been further advanced through the
Federal rule-making process. The committee also notes that
under the Export Control Reform Initiative, only firearms that
are inherently military and otherwise warrant control on the
USML, such as those that possess parameters or characteristics
that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage to
the United States, should continue to be subject to ITAR. Those
items that do not warrant USML control would shift to the more
flexible licensing authorities of the Department of Commerce
under this reform initiative. The committee is concerned that
current export controls on firearms may be adversely affecting
U.S. businesses, including suppliers of the Department of
Defense, by giving foreign companies a competitive advantage
over U.S. firms. Therefore, the committee supports review by
the committee of jurisdiction of the current $1.0 million
congressional notification threshold for exports of USML-
controlled firearms.
Independent Assessment of Department of Defense Cloud Computing
Acquisition and Brokerage Policies
The committee is aware that there are significant cloud
computing resources in the commercial sector that have resulted
in reduced data center infrastructure and support personnel,
leading to cost savings and efficiency for users of these
services. The committee acknowledged that reality, as evidenced
by the language in section 2867 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) that
called for a strategy for transitioning to cloud computing,
including the utilization of cloud computing services generally
available within the private sector.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense could
benefit from that trend, but is concerned that the guidance for
leveraging commercial cloud services is being developed too
slowly. The committee believes that an outside review of the
Department's guidance and planning for cloud computing
capabilities, including both in-house and private sector, would
be valuable. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to conduct an independent assessment of the
Department's policies and guidance for cloud computing
capabilities and provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by
September 30, 2015. This assessment should include the
following:
(1) Whether industry and government best practices are
embodied in Department of Defense policies and guidance;
(2) Whether cloud brokerage procedures are clearly
articulated, commonly understood by service providers, and
unbiased with respect to the use of in-house government-
provided cloud services;
(3) Whether security protocols for commercial cloud
products and services are clearly articulated;
(4) Whether guidance exists for integration of commercial
cloud capabilities into the architectural plans for the Joint
Information Environment; and
(5) Whether the ongoing commercial cloud pilots are being
evaluated for cost, performance, and security against
standardized, consistent, and objective measures of
effectiveness that are adequately aligned with current
guidance.
Industrial Base Risks Associated with Negotiated Standards of
Production
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
depends on multiple unique materials for the manufacture and
operation of equipment. Without such materials, high-
performance hulls and airframes, advanced targeting and sensor
equipment, electronic and computing devices, and many other
important pieces of warfighter equipment cannot be produced.
The committee notes that many of these materials, such as
beryllium, have unique characteristics and require specialized
processing facilities. The committee is concerned that certain
regulations adopted by other countries are problematic and
should not be adopted by the United States. Specifically, the
committee is concerned that negotiated standards of production
for some of these materials could lead to a loss of capacity in
the U.S. defense industrial base. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense to monitor all proposed
regulatory changes, to identify those that could potentially
interrupt the supply of materials critical to national
security, and to notify the United States Trade Representative
of any concern in a timely manner.
Operational Contract Support
The committee notes that many of the contracting failures
noted by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction,
the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction,
the Department of Defense Inspector General, the Government
Accountability Office, and others, were due to weaknesses in
planning, execution, and oversight of Operational Contract
Support (OCS) activities. A March 2011 Defense Science Board
Task Force report, titled ``Improvements to Services
Contracting,'' specifically highlighted OCS as a ``special
case'' that needs immediate and focused attention given the
important role of contractors in supporting military
operations.
The committee applauds efforts by the Joint Staff, the
geographic combatant commanders, and the military departments
to improve planning, execution, and oversight of OCS
activities. The committee is aware that the Department of
Defense conducted a joint OCS exercise in January 2014 designed
to prepare uniformed and civilian OCS professionals to deploy
and support any contingency, humanitarian, or operational
mission. Not only did the exercise provide individual and
collective training related to OCS activities, but it also
served as a platform to evaluate and to refine proposed
revisions to Joint Publication 4-10, which establishes
Department of Defense doctrine for planning, conducting, and
assessing OCS integration and contractor management functions
in support of joint operations. The committee also applauds the
Department's inclusion of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency in the exercise as a way to promote efforts to improve
interagency coordination and cooperation in future contingency
operations.
While the committee is pleased with the Department's
efforts to improve OCS planning, execution, and oversight, and
supports its efforts to conduct annual joint exercises related
to OCS, the committee is concerned that such exercises have yet
to be formally included in the Department's budget submission.
Instead of expressly including funding for OCS exercises in the
budget, it appears that the Department resources these
exercises with funding from the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund (DAWDF). The committee recognizes that the
DAWDF was created to ensure ``the acquisition workforce has the
capacity, in both personnel and skills, needed to properly
perform its mission, provide appropriate oversight of
contractor performance, and ensure that the Department receives
the best value for the expenditure of public resources.''
However, the committee is concerned that the use of DAWDF funds
to support these exercises will perpetuate the notion that OCS
is a contracting issue and could discourage the participation
of personnel, outside of the contracting community, who are
essential to performing OCS planning and management functions.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure
that future OCS education, training, and exercises are
sufficiently resourced in a manner that integrates OCS
awareness, education, and training into the professional
development of the entire civilian and military workforce. To
further integrate military, civilian, and contractor personnel
into an effective total force, the committee also encourages
the Department to include contract support scenarios into
select operational exercises.
Rare Earth Elements Supply Chain Review
The committee remains concerned about the Department of
Defense's ability to mitigate the risks associated with its
dependence on foreign-sourced rare earth elements. A February
2014 Department of Defense report titled ``Diversification of
Supply and Reclamation Activities Related to Rare Earth
Elements,'' received by the committee pursuant to the committee
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, stated that the
Department's mitigation strategy for foreign-sourced rare earth
elements used in Department of Defense weapon systems includes
``diversification of supply, pursuit of substitutes, and
reclamation of waste.'' However, a separate February 2014
report from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development and Acquisition on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF),
also required by H. Rept. 113-102, discussed the lack of
feasibility of implementing such a mitigation strategy for the
JSF.
The committee is aware that the development of many modern
systems, including the JSF and the AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task
Oriented Radar, rely on rare earth magnets, and it has come to
the committee's attention that there are cases where these
magnets are being supplied by foreign companies. The committee
finds the Department's use of national security waivers to
enable continued reliance on these foreign-origin magnets, to
specifically include samarium-cobalt magnets, troubling, and it
notes such concern elsewhere in this report. The committee is
concerned that in relying on foreign companies for supply of
these magnets, the Department may unknowingly impart knowledge
of design parameters, performance requirements, and test
procedures for parts or components in advanced U.S. military
equipment. The committee is also concerned that the recent
discovery of Chinese-origin rare earth magnets in the JSF
supply chain occurred only as a result of compliance
requirements related to the prohibition on foreign sourcing of
other elements such as titanium, steel, and zirconium.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the
Defense Contract Management Agency to conduct an examination of
the sourcing of rare earth elements in Acquisition Category
(ACAT) I programs not later than February 1, 2015. In doing so,
the Director should determine whether an ACAT I program
contains rare earth elements that are necessary to the
functionality of that program. If so, the Director should
determine the country of origin of the elements. If the
Director has reason to believe that rare earth elements in an
ACAT I program were manufactured by a foreign entity, then the
Director should immediately inform the program manager in
writing, and provide a report of the findings to the
congressional defense committees, not later than March 1, 2015.
The report may be provided in classified form.
Regional Commercialization Activities
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
continues to be challenged in commercializing and transitioning
technology developed through federally funded research and
development. The Department has a number of tools at its
disposal to support these activities, such as the
Commercialization Readiness Program, the Manufacturing
Technology Program, and the Mentor-Protege program, but few are
focused on tapping into the regional innovation centers across
the Nation.
The committee understands that the Office of Naval Research
has funded some initiatives that support the regional
technology commercialization ecosystem. For example, the
Pacific International Center for High Technology Research
provides some administrative support and subject matter
expertise for small and emerging businesses in diverse fields
such as agriculture, renewable energy, and health information
systems. Also, the Hawaii Technology Development Venture is a
project supporting Hawaii-based technology businesses, as well
as current and future Department of Navy and Department of
Defense programs.
In addition, the committee notes that section 252 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239) allowed the Secretary of Defense to use the
research and engineering network of the Department of Defense
to support the regional advanced technology clusters
established by the Secretary of Commerce to encourage the
development of technologies for national security and homeland
defense challenges. The committee sees such activities as
useful means to leverage State and local technology
investments, and encourages the Department to find similar
mechanisms for supporting the Nation's industrial base for
emerging technologies.
Use of National Security Waiver to Specialty Metals Clause
The committee is aware of recent cases where the Secretary
of Defense has waived the legal requirement to buy specialty
metals from American sources, pursuant to the national security
waiver clause in subsection (k) of section 2533b, title 10,
United States Code. The committee believes that the national
security waiver should be used only to provide flexibility to
the Department of Defense when there is imminent threat of harm
to U.S. service members or national security interests, not in
lieu of the other exceptions provided in the clause. The
committee is concerned that recent use of the waiver has not
been aligned with this intent, therefore the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense
committees, not later than December 1, 2014, on the
Department's use of the national security waiver clause in
section 2533b of title 10, United States Code. The report
should include:
(1) Documentation of all national security waivers issued
by the Department since 2008;
(2) The procedures used by the Department to determine
whether a national security waiver should be issued;
(3) The procedures used by the Department to determine
whether a supply deficiency is best addressed through the
national security waiver or through the availability exception;
(4) The procedures used by the Department to monitor
contractor compliance;
(5) The procedures used by the Department to determine
whether noncompliance by contractors and subcontractors is
``knowing or willful'' (10 U.S.C. 2533b(k)(3)); and
(6) The procedures used by the Department to determine
whether further action by the Department is necessary to
prevent the recurrence of the supply chain issue that led to
noncompliance and the subsequent issuance of a national
security waiver.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures,
and Limitations
Section 801--Extension to United States Transportation Command of
Authorities Relating to Prohibition on Contracting with the Enemy
This section would amend section 831(i)(1) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) to add United States Transportation Command to the list of
covered combatant commands.
Section 802--Extension of Contract Authority for Advanced Component
Development or Prototype Units
This section would extend existing statutory authority
under subsection (b)(4) of section 819 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 10
U.S.C. 2302 note) until September 30, 2019. This authority
provides the Department of Defense a ``bridge'' between the
science and technology portion of a contract awarded under the
Federal Acquisition Regulation's Broad Agency Announcement
authority, and the award of a contract under a new acquisition
for advanced component development or production.
Section 803--Amendment Relating to Authority of the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency to Carry Out Certain Prototype Projects
This section would amend section 845(a)(1) of Public Law
103-160 (10 U.S.C. 2371 note) to broaden the definition for the
types of efforts for which other transactions authority might
be used by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Section 804--Extension of Limitation on Aggregate Annual Amount
Available for Contract Services
This section would extend for 1 year the cap on the
aggregate annual amount spent on contracts for services through
fiscal year 2015.
Subtitle B--Industrial Base Matters
Section 811--Three-Year Extension of and Amendments to Test Program for
Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans
This section would modify and extend the test program for
negotiation of comprehensive small business subcontracting
plans authorized by section 402 of the Small Business
Administration Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-574) and last amended by section 866 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81).
The committee notes that the test program was authorized to
allow contracting activities in the military departments and
the defense agencies to undertake one or more demonstration
projects to determine whether the negotiation and
administration of comprehensive subcontracting plans would
reduce administrative burdens on contracts while enhancing
opportunities for small business concerns. However, after
nearly 24 years since the original authorization of the
program, the test program has yet to provide evidence that it
meets the original stated goal of the program in the committee
report (H. Rept. 101-331) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991: ``to be more
advantageous to both the government and to small and small
disadvantaged businesses,'' and ``to expand available
participation in a broader range of subcontracting
opportunities, especially in the technical area.''
Therefore, this section would include additional
requirements to ensure that the test program collects the data
necessary to assess its effectiveness and to standardize its
requirements with other subcontracting programs:
(1) The test program would be expanded to apply to all of
the small business subcontracting goals, as the committee
believes that the program was not intended to ignore additional
subcontracting programs of the Federal Government;
(2) The threshold for participation in the program would be
raised from $5.0 million to $100.0 million because the test
program was intended to apply to contractors with a substantial
presence in defense acquisition, and all current participants
exceed this threshold;
(3) Companies participating in the test program would be
required to report data by North American Industrial
Classification System codes, by major defense acquisition
program, by military department, and by service contract
exceeding $100.0 million; and
(4) The requirements for data on the costs avoided as a
result of the program would be expanded.
As with other subcontracting programs required by the Small
Business Act, this section would stipulate that a failure of a
participant to make a good-faith effort to comply with the
program will be used as a factor in past performance
evaluations.
Lastly, this section would require the Secretary of Defense
to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Small Business
of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate, not later than
September 20, 2015, with an assessment of the program in order
to inform any future decision to reauthorize the program.
Section 812--Improving Opportunities for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned
Small Businesses
This section would amend section 657 of title 15, United
States Code, by consolidating the verification and appeals
processes for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business
(SDVOSB) programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs and the
Small Business Administration (SBA), and by moving the
processes and resources of the SDVOSB verification programs at
the Department of Veterans Affairs to the SBA. This section
would also unify the definitions of SDVOSB in section 632 of
title 15, United States Code, and section 8127(l) of title 38,
United States Code, and would amend section 8127(f) of title
38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration specifying
the manner in which the Secretary shall notify the
Administrator as to an individual's status as a veteran or a
veteran with a service-connected disability. These changes
should allow more efficient and transparent verification of
small businesses requesting SDVOSB status.
Section 813--Plan for Improving Data on Bundled and Consolidated
Contracts
This section would amend section 644 of title 15, United
States Code, by requiring the Small Business Administration to
work with other agencies to create and implement a data quality
improvement plan to promote greater accuracy, transparency, and
accountability in the reporting of contract bundling and
consolidation. The committee recognizes that properly labeling
a contract as bundled or consolidated is important to small
business competition, as the process of contract labeling
triggers a series of reviews and mitigation steps that promote
opportunities for small business. Therefore, this section would
also require the Comptroller General of the United States to
initiate a study, not later than October 1, 2018, to examine
the effectiveness of the required data quality improvement plan
and report the findings of the study to the Committee on Small
Business of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate not later
than 12 months after initiation of the study.
Section 814--Authority to Provide Education to Small Businesses on
Certain Requirements of Arms Export Control Act
This section would amend section 21(c)(1) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(c)(1)) by including a requirement
that applicants receiving grants pursuant to that section shall
also assist small businesses by providing, where appropriate,
education on the requirements applicable to small businesses
under the regulations issued pursuant to the Arms Export
Control Act (chapter 39 of title 22, United States Code) and on
compliance with those requirements. This section would also
amend section 2418 of title 10, United States Code, by
expanding the Procurement Technical Assistance Program to
assist small business concerns with education related to export
controls.
Section 815--Prohibition on Reverse Auctions for Covered Contracts
This section would express a sense of Congress that reverse
auctions, when used appropriately, may improve the Federal
Government's procurement of commercially available goods and
services by increasing competition, reducing prices, and
improving opportunities for small businesses. However, the
committee is concerned that, if not used appropriately, reverse
auctions can harm small businesses, reduce competition, and
render higher purchase prices.
The committee remains concerned that the use of reverse
auctions to procure services, such as design and construction
services, or goods such as items of personal protective
equipment and specific organizational clothing and equipment,
may not serve the interests of the warfighter or the taxpayer.
Therefore, this section would also amend the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 631) to prohibit the use of reverse auctions for
procurement of certain goods and services if the contract is
awarded using a Small Business Act procurement authority. It
would also limit the use of reverse auctions in cases where
only one offer was received or where offerors do not have the
ability to submit revised bids throughout the course of the
auction. The section further clarifies that the desire to use a
reverse auction does not obviate Federal agencies from the
obligation to use a Small Business Act procurement authority.
Section 816--SBA Surety Bond Guarantee
This section would amend section 411(c)(1) of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-699) by raising
the guarantee rate on the Small Business Administration's
preferred security bond program from 70 percent to 90 percent.
This should enable greater competition for government contracts
by small business construction contractors, thereby reducing
prices for the taxpayer. Data provided by the Small Business
Administration to the House Committee on Small Business
indicates that this change can be made at no cost to the
taxpayer.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 821--Certification of Effectiveness for Air Force Information
Technology Contracting
This section would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to conduct a review of the Air Force Network-Centric
Solutions II (NETCENTS II) contract and provide a certification
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives that the NETCENTS II contract is effective
in delivering information technology capabilities for the joint
force.
Section 822--Airlift Service
This section would amend chapter 157 of title 10, United
States Code, by inserting a new section that would require
transportation of passenger or property by Civil Reserve Air
Fleet-eligible aircraft obtained by the Secretary of Defense or
the Secretary of a military department through a contract for
airlift service to be provided only by a covered air carrier.
Section 823--Compliance with Requirements for Senior Department of
Defense Officials Seeking Employment with Defense Contractors
This section would amend section 847 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to require the Secretary of Defense to designate an
official of the Department of Defense to ensure compliance with
the requirements of that section and would require that, not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, such official shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the Department's efforts to ensure
compliance with the requirements of section 847.
Section 824--Procurement of Personal Protective Equipment
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to use
best value tradeoff source selection methods to the maximum
extent practicable when procuring an item of personal
protective equipment or critical safety items. Personal
protective equipment items include, but are not limited to,
body armor components, combat helmets, combat protective
eyewear, environmental and fire resistant clothing, footwear,
organizational clothing and individual equipment, and other
items as determined appropriate by the Secretary.
Section 825--Prohibition on Funds for Contracts Violating Executive
Order No. 11246
This section would prohibit funding authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available to the
Department of Defense to be used to enter into any contract
with any entity if such contract would violate Executive Order
No. 11246 (relating to non-retaliation for disclosure of
compensation information), as amended by the announcement of
the President on April 8, 2014.
Section 826--Requirement for Policies and Standard Checklist in
Procurement of Services
This section would amend section 2330a of title 10, United
States Code, by requiring the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness to implement a standard checklist to be
used for new contract approval for services or exercising an
option under an existing contract for services. The checklist
shall be modeled on the polices and checklist relating to
services contract approval form (dated August 2012) established
and in use by the Department of the Army. Finally, this section
would require the Comptroller General of the United States to
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the
implementation of the standard checklist for each of fiscal
years 2015, 2016, and 2017.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Headquarters
Reductions
The committee is aware that in July 2013, the Secretary of
Defense directed a 20 percent reduction in the major
headquarters budgets of the Department of Defense, and
announced plans to implement a series of management
efficiencies and overhead reductions within the Department. In
December 2013, the Secretary then announced several
organizational changes and personnel reductions within the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and stated that,
``every dollar that we save by reducing the size of our
headquarters and back-office operations is a dollar that can be
invested in warfighting capabilities and readiness.'' However,
the committee notes that announcements on organizational
changes and personnel reductions across the Department's other
major headquarters organizations have not yet been made.
The committee has observed extensive growth in the
Department's major headquarters over the past decade. In a 2013
review, the Comptroller General of the United States reported
that the size of the headquarters staff of the geographic
combatant commands, excluding U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM),
had grown by 50 percent over the past decade. In an ongoing
review for the committee, the Comptroller General has found
even larger growth at CENTCOM, noting its support to military
operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan over the past decade, as well as the functional
combatant commands, the service secretariats and service
staffs, the Joint Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of
Defense. The Comptroller General further observed a lack of
discipline in setting and validating requirements for
individual headquarters, and a lack of visibility into the
total resources allocated across organizations for similar
functions and missions. The growth in bureaucracy at the
Department is also being examined by the Defense Business Board
in the context of its review of best business practices in
human capital management.
While the committee welcomes the Department's efforts to
implement management efficiencies and overhead reductions, it
is concerned that the Department may seek to implement such
changes and across-the-board personnel reductions without the
benefit of a comprehensive assessment of mission and functional
requirements, critical capability and skillset requirements,
and cost drivers. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes
a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to
develop a plan to combine combatant command back-office
functions in order to achieve greater efficiencies.
The committee appreciates the Comptroller General's reviews
and believes that further assessment of the data collected by
the Comptroller General may better inform the Department, as it
continues efforts to generate cost savings through
organizational changes and personnel reductions, and the
committee as it continues to oversee such efforts. Therefore,
the committee directs the Comptroller General to perform an in-
depth review in order to identify:
(1) Any trends in personnel and other resources being
devoted to selected functional areas within and across related
organizations;
(2) To what extent the Department of Defense and the
military services have taken steps to eliminate or consolidate
overlapping, fragmented, or duplicative functions;
(3) Whether efforts to date constitute a systematic and
comprehensive approach; and
(4) Any additional steps the Department could take to
realize additional savings.
The organizations that should be considered in this cross-
cutting review should include, but not be limited to, the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the service secretariats and staff, the geographic and
functional combatant commands and their service component
commands, and the defense agencies and field activities. The
committee directs the Comptroller General to submit one or more
reports, as deemed appropriate by the Comptroller General and
agreed to with the committee, by April 30, 2015, to the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
Comptroller General Review of Operational Test and Evaluation Processes
and Activities
The committee remains concerned over the regularity at
which an increase in time and funding is required to develop
and field new weapon systems. To help inform the committee's
understanding of how operational test and evaluation processes
and activities may unnecessarily increase schedule and cost of
major defense acquisition programs, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to review the
operational test and evaluation processes and activities of the
Department of Defense and to inform the congressional defense
committees of the results of that review not later than March
15, 2015. The review should, at a minimum, examine:
(1) The processes the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation (DOT&E) uses to select programs for oversight and
the number and types of programs covered since October 1, 2009;
(2) The nature and extent of oversight DOT&E conducted or
is conducting on these programs;
(3) The extent to which the requirements of subsection
2339(b) of title 10, United States Code, are applied in such a
manner that imposes additional operational requirements on
programs overseen by DOT&E or necessitates testing of
operational requirements not previously validated by the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council or a military service;
(4) The benefits of DOT&E oversight on these programs, to
include enhancements of program performance, reliability, and
capability;
(5) Cost or schedule delays in the operational test phases
of these programs and the resulting cost and schedule delays
incurred by these programs as a result of oversight processes
and activities of DOT&E; and
(6) The specific DOT&E criteria, for example, measures of
effectiveness and analysis, and process to measure
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of programs.
Department of Defense Unmanned Systems Office
The committee believes that an independent organization
within the Department of Defense to develop and coordinate the
unmanned air, land, and sea capabilities of the United States
may provide greater unity of effort, better meet military
requirements, minimize duplication, and maximize the allocation
of limited resources for unmanned systems within the
Department.
Such an independent organization would aim to improve
policy and oversight of unmanned systems across the Department;
coordinate acquisition and research, development, technology,
and engineering efforts for unmanned systems; make investment
and budget recommendations for unmanned systems; and make
recommendations on integrating unmanned systems with existing
operational concepts and determining new concepts.
The director of such office would serve as the principal
advisor to both the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary
of Defense on matters relating to unmanned systems and as the
Department's principal liaison to other Federal agencies, the
defense industry, and centers of research on such matters.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense to
brief the House Armed Services Committee not later than August
1, 2014, on the advisability of establishing such an
independent organization.
Global Response Force
The committee believes the Global Response Force (GRF),
currently maintained within the Army's 82nd Airborne Division
at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is essential to the nation's
ability to swiftly respond to crises and unforeseen events, and
to rapidly project military power in support of U.S. national
interests. As the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
testified to the committee on April 3, 2014, a robust and agile
GRF capability is needed to ``move more quickly, because events
unfold more quickly in this world than they ever have before
and we have [to] be able to get there fast.''
However, the committee notes that the GRF is dependent on
assets and support provided by the joint force, and thus its
mission effectiveness and capacity are limited when such assets
and support are not equally prioritized by other services or
elements of the Department of Defense. The committee encourages
the Department to look more holistically at the GRF to identify
requirements, assess gaps in capabilities and seams across the
services, and allocate sufficient resources. It also encourages
the Department to place greater emphasis on joint planning,
operations, and training to ensure an effective, integrated GRF
capability is maintained in accordance with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Force 2020 construct.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management
Section 901--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the
Department of the Navy and Marine Corps
This section would re-designate the Department of the Navy
as the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps and change
the title of its secretary to the Secretary of the Navy and
Marine Corps. This section would formally recognize the
responsibility of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy over
both the Navy and Marine Corps and the Marine Corps' status as
an equal partner with the Navy.
Section 902--Additional Responsibility for Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation
This section would amend section 139 of title 10, United
States Code, by including a new subsection that would require
the Director of Operational Test Evaluation to consider the
potential for increases in program cost estimates or delays in
schedule estimates in the implementation of policies,
procedures, and activities related to operational test and
evaluation, and to take appropriate action to ensure that the
conduct of operational test and evaluation activities do not
unnecessarily impede program schedules or increase program
costs.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of
the operational test and evaluation processes and activities of
the Department of Defense and to report the results of that
review to the congressional defense committees not later than
March 15, 2015.
Section 903--Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment
This section would establish the position of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment. The
position would be appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. The committee recognizes
that the responsibilities of this organization already exist
within the Department of Defense, reporting to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics. The creation of this Assistant Secretary of Defense
position shall ensure no net growth in personnel or resources
for the organization, and shall not be exempt from any directed
headquarters reductions.
Section 904--Requirement for Congressional Briefing before Divesting of
Defense Finance and Accounting Service Functions
This section would prohibit the transfer of financial
management functions out of the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS) until the Secretary of Defense provides a
briefing to the congressional defense committees on a transfer
plan and certifies the transfer would reduce costs, increase
efficiencies, maintain the timeline for auditability of
financial statements, and maintain the roles and missions of
DFAS.
Section 905--Combatant Command Efficiency Plan
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop a plan to combine the back office functions of two or
more combatant commands and to submit a report on the plan to
the congressional defense committees within 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act. This section would define
the term ``back office functions'' as those including, but not
limited to, the administrative and support functions of a
headquarters of a combatant command. This section would also
limit fiscal year 2015 funds for the headquarters of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff until the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff, provides the
briefing on combatant command headquarters personnel and
resource requirements that was directed in the committee report
(H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
The committee believes a focus by the Department of Defense
on consolidating or eliminating organizations and personnel
that perform similar functions and missions, such as
administrative and support functions, can contribute to cost
savings and efficiencies within the Department.
Section 906--Requirement for Plan to Reduce Geographic Combatant
Commands to Four by Fiscal Year 2020
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop a non-binding plan to reduce the number of geographic
combatant commands to no more than four by the end of fiscal
year 2020 and submit a report to Congress within 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act on the plan, the
feasibility and risks of the plan, and any recommendations to
implement the plan the Secretary considers appropriate.
Section 907--Office of Net Assessment
This section would establish the Office of Net Assessment
(ONA) as a new section in chapter 4 of title 10, United States
Code, that includes a requirement for the Secretary of Defense
to establish a separate, dedicated program element for ONA in
the annual budget materials submitted to Congress. This section
would also include a statement of policy that the office be
maintained as an independent organization within the Department
of Defense responsible for developing and coordinating net
assessments of the military capabilities and potential of the
United States in comparison with the military capabilities and
potential of other countries or groups of countries, so as to
identify emerging or future threats or opportunities for the
United States.
The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense plans
to realign ONA under the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy. While the committee supports the
Secretary's objective to have ONA's long-range comparative
assessments inform and influence the Department's overall
strategy and policy, it remains concerned that such a
realignment may ultimately impact the freedom and flexibility
of the office to examine long-range challenges and non-policy
specific matters that may not always be in sync with the
priorities and responsibilities of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy. Furthermore, the committee remains
unconvinced that such a realignment would produce any
meaningful cost savings or efficiencies that the Secretary
hopes to achieve.
This section would therefore preserve the independence of
the office, ensure that the head of the office reports directly
to the Secretary of Defense, and create greater visibility into
its budget. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends an
increase in funds for the office.
Section 908--Amendments Relating to Organization and Management of the
Office of the Secretary of Defense
This section would incorporate a proposal from the
Department of Defense to make several amendments to title 10,
United States Code, relating to the organization and management
of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Section 909--Periodic Review of Department of Defense Management
Headquarters
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop a plan and submit a report to the congressional defense
committees within 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act to implement a periodic review and analysis of the
Department of Defense personnel requirements for management
headquarters and submit the required plan to the congressional
defense committees. The section would also modify the status
report requirements in section 904(d)(2) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66).
Subtitle B--Total Force Management
Section 911--Modifications to Biennial Strategic Workforce Plan
Relating to Senior Management, Functional, and Technical Workforce of
the Department of Defense
This section would amend section 115b of title 10, United
States Code, to modify the requirement for the Secretary of
Defense to prepare a biennial Strategic Workforce Plan so as to
cover ``the senior management workforce'' of the Department of
Defense rather than the ``senior management, functional, and
technical workforce (including scientists and engineers).''
Section 912--Repeal of Extension of Comptroller General Report on
Inventory
This section would amend section 803(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84), as amended by section 951(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), by
striking ``2013, 2014, and 2015'' and inserting ``and 2013''.
The effect of this amendment would be to repeal the requirement
for the Comptroller General of the United States to report on
efforts by the Department of Defense to compile and review the
Department's inventory of contract services within 270 days
after such inventory has been submitted to Congress. While the
Comptroller General's work in this area has been beneficial,
the committee notes that there are other existing mandates for
reviews and reporting requirements regarding how the
Department's inventory of contract services is used to inform
workforce and budget decisions.
Section 913--Assignment of Certain New Requirements Based on
Determinations of Cost-Efficiency
This section would require that when assigning a new
Department of Defense work requirement to military or civilian
personnel, or to a contractor, the assignment shall be made
based on a determination of which workforce can perform the
work in the most cost-efficient manner except in cases where
the new requirement is inherently governmental, closely
associated with inherently governmental functions, critical, or
required by law to be performed by military personnel or
civilian personnel.
Section 914--Prohibition on Conversion of Functions Performed by
Civilian or Contractor Personnel to Performance by Military Personnel
This section would clarify when military personnel can be
used to perform functions that are currently being performed by
civilian or contractor personnel and would codify relevant
Department of Defense instruction and policy.
Section 915--Notification of Compliance With Section Relating to
Procurement of Services
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure compliance with existing law regarding appropriate
manpower performance and provide written notification of
compliance to the congressional defense committees. This
section would also require the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct a review of such a notification and
report to the congressional defense committees within 120 days
after the date of the provision of such a notification.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 921--Extension of Authority to Waive Reimbursement of Costs of
Activities for Nongovernmental Personnel at Department of Defense
Regional Centers for Security Studies
This section would amend section 941(b)(1) of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(10 U.S.C. 184) by extending for 5 years the authority of the
Secretary of Defense to waive the reimbursement of costs for
certain nongovernmental personnel at the Department of Defense
Regional Centers for Security Studies.
Section 923--Authority to Require Employees of the Department of
Defense and Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to
Occupy Quarters on a Rental Basis While Performing Official Travel
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to
direct the use of adequate Government quarters, or the use of
Government-leased quarters or lodging arranged through a
Government program, by civilian employees and Uniformed Service
members, while performing official travel. Section 5911(e) of
title 5, United States Code, currently states that an agency
head may not require an employee or member of a Uniformed
Service to occupy quarters on a rental basis unless the agency
head determines that necessary service cannot be rendered or
that Government property cannot adequately be protected
otherwise. This change to title 5 is intended to provide travel
cost savings and other benefits to the Department of Defense,
without significantly reducing the quality and security of
lodging for civilian employees and service members performing
official travel.
Section 924--Single Standard Mileage Reimbursement Rate for Privately
Owned Automobiles of Government Employees and Members of the Uniformed
Services
This section would establish a rate that provides adequate
compensation for employees who perform temporary duty travel.
It would apply to all Federal Government employees and members
of the Uniformed Services traveling on behalf of the Federal
Government in a privately owned automobile.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Counter-Drug Activities
Afghanistan Counternarcotics Strategy Post-2014
The committee recognizes the United States presence and
mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan after December
31, 2014, has yet to be announced. The committee notes that the
production of poppy and the resultant drug trade continue to
increase and pose a threat to the security and stability of
Afghanistan. In recent years, Afghanistan has produced
approximately 90 percent of the world's poppy crop, and the
level of profit from these crops continues to rise. These
profits directly fund the terrorist activities of Al Qaeda and
other dangerous groups that threaten both Afghanistan and the
United States. The October 2013 Department of Defense Post-2014
Counternarcotics Strategy for Afghanistan and the Region states
that, ``Post-2014, it is imperative that the Department
continue to work with inter-agency and international partners
to disrupt the flow of illicit drug money to terrorists and
insurgents, and reduce the corrosive and corruptive impact of
illicit drug money on regional stability.''
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
include the combating illicit narcotics and illicit trafficking
mission in its post-2014 Afghanistan presence and mission
requirements. The committee believes the Department's mission
to combat narcotics in Afghanistan is an enduring mission that
must be continued with our international partners to sustain
security and stability in Afghanistan.
National Guard Counterdrug Programs
The committee acknowledges the significant role the
National Guard plays in combating illicit narcotics within the
homeland. The demand for narcotics in the United States
continues to fund transnational criminal organizations
globally. The drug trade breeds instability on the Nation's
border and throughout the country. Through a variety of
programs to include education, training, and analysis, the
National Guard provides necessary support to countering drugs
and their threat to national security.
In a fiscally constrained environment, prioritizing limited
resources is essential. Therefore, the committee encourages the
National Guard to prioritize its counterdrug programs to
maximize the use of limited funds. The committee is aware that
the National Guard uses a threat-based resource model to
determine the highest at-risk States and regions of the United
States for which to focus resources. The committee believes the
National Guard should leverage this model to prioritize its
counterdrug programs and resources. The committee also
encourages the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to continue evaluating how
to best use limited counterdrug resources to more effectively
combat illicit narcotics within the homeland.
U.S. Southern Command Asset Resourcing
The committee continues to be discouraged by asset
resourcing in U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). In particular,
the committee is concerned that a shortfall in maritime,
aerial, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(ISR) assets in the region hampers SOUTHCOM's ability to combat
the illicit networking of drugs, weapons, humans, and money,
and affects security and stability along the southern border of
the United States.
While the Office of National Drug Control Policy's whole-
of-government goal is to remove 40 percent of narcotics
transiting to the United States through SOUTHCOM's area of
responsibility (AOR) by fiscal year 2015, the committee notes
that this goal is unlikely to be met, in large part because
resources allocated to the region to address this goal are
continuing to diminish. In testimony before the committee in
February 2014, the commander of SOUTHCOM expressed his concern
about U.S. asset shortfalls in the region to meet the command's
assigned missions derived from this whole-of-government goal,
among others. Specifically, the commander testified that
SOUTHCOM requires a 16.0 ship presence to support the command's
assigned missions. In contrast, the commander estimates that,
in fiscal year 2015, SOUTHCOM will maintain a sporadic 3.0 ship
presence. Similarly, the commander of SOUTHCOM, before the
Senate Committee on Armed Services in March 2014, estimated
that in fiscal year 2015, the command will satisfy only 5
percent of its ISR requirements associated with combating
transnational organized crime.
The committee recognizes that the cost of combating illicit
drug and other networks is exponentially lower, and the
associated violence levels minimal, outside the United States
as compared to inside the Nation. Therefore, in order to more
effectively interdict narcotics and combat other illicit
networks and transnational criminal organizations in the
region, the Department of Defense must prioritize the detection
and monitoring mission in SOUTHCOM.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
February 1, 2015, on the Department's updated strategy to
combat illicit drug networks, other illicit networks, and
transnational criminal organizations, in the SOUTHCOM AOR. The
strategy should include an identification of requirements,
assessment of capability gaps and shortfalls, assessment of
assets and resources necessary to address the gaps and
shortfalls, and plan for allocating those assets and resources.
Lastly, the strategy should include an assessment of and cost
estimate for alternative platforms, including maritime and
aerial platforms, that could also satisfy the command's
detection and monitoring requirements.
Other Matters
Army Force Structure
The committee believes the Army's current requirement to
further reduce planned end strength and force structure by
fiscal year 2019 is a direct consequence of the Budget Control
Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). The committee notes the Army's
current plan would reduce the Active Component end strength
from a wartime high of 570,000 soldiers to 450,000 soldiers
with a potential further reduction to 420,000 soldiers absent
repeal of sequestration-level budget caps in fiscal year 2016.
As a result, the committee understands the Army is also
reducing active brigade combat teams from 45 to 32 and
divesting almost 700 aircraft, as well as eliminating 3 combat
aviation brigades. The Army's plan would also reduce Army
National Guard end strength from 358,000 soldiers to 335,000
soldiers with a potential further reduction to 315,000 soldiers
absent repeal of sequestration-level budget caps. The committee
understands the Army National Guard would be required to divest
its AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, effectively transferring
these assets to the Active Component, as well as divest its OH-
58 Kiowa Warriors Scout Reconnaissance helicopters. However,
the committee understands the Army National Guard would receive
111 UH-60 Black Hawk L and M model utility helicopters from the
Active Component to improve the Guard's capabilities to perform
title 32 crisis response and defense support to civil authority
missions. Therefore, the committee expects that those units
that transfer AH-64 Apache attack helicopters to the active
Army will receive priority for modernized Black Hawks which
should be at a minimum in the UH-60 Black Hawk L model utility
helicopter configuration.
In testimony before the committee, the Secretary of the
Army and Chief of Staff of the Army officially stated their
concerns regarding the potential inability of the U.S. Army to
meet the requirements of the current National Military Strategy
and execute operational plans absent a repeal of sequestration-
level budget caps in fiscal year 2016. The committee remains
concerned by this testimony and believes that in order to
mitigate the increased strategic risk generated by the Budget
Control Act of 2011, the Army is being forced to reduce end
strength to preserve near-term readiness through the Future
Years Defense Program. The committee is concerned with the
planned reductions and realignments the Army has proposed,
specifically the greater reductions in Active Component end
strength and brigade combat teams, as well as the proposed
aviation realignment of combat aviation aircraft. Therefore,
elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that
would require a Comptroller General of the United States review
of the methods the Army and the Department of Defense Office of
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation used to determine the
future force structure of the Army, to include the appropriate
mix between Active, Guard, and Reserve Component forces. The
committee also recommends increases in funding for procurement
and operation and maintenance accounts to accelerate the
conversions of UH-60A to UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters, and
also recommends additional funding to procure six additional
UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters to address Army National Guard
modernization shortfalls. Finally, the committee recommends
additional funding for operation and maintenance readiness
accounts to increase overall training opportunities and
increase depot-level maintenance in the Army National Guard.
Assessment of Counterfeit Detection Efforts
The committee recognizes the challenges posed to the
Department of Defense in identifying and mitigating the
presence of counterfeit parts in its supply chain. Section 818
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) was an important step in establishing
policy, guidance, and compliance reporting to move the
Department forward in addressing the detection and mitigation
of counterfeit parts, including microelectronics. The committee
believes that it is important to take stock of the actions that
have been taken to date and to evaluate their effectiveness.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December
1, 2014, assessing the approaches currently taken to mitigate
counterfeit parts in the supply system. The briefing should
include the following:
(1) A cost benefit assessment of current compliance and
technology measures for mitigating counterfeit parts, including
microelectronics, in the supply chain, and requirements for
deoxyribonucleic acid authentication marking. This assessment
should include costs associated with program implementation and
the scope of components that are being addressed by these
measures;
(2) An assessment of the costs and benefits of expanding
these measures to additional classes of technology, which have
been deemed at high risk for counterfeiting;
(3) An analysis of the quantity of alerts and problem
advisories reporting counterfeit electronic parts in the
Government Industry Data Exchange Program since January 2011
that were a result of the use of the measures described in item
(1) above; and
(4) A description and analysis of the Department of
Defense's efforts to collaborate and coordinate with the
defense industrial base on the development of standards
associated with the prevention, detection, and responses to the
threat of counterfeit electronic parts in the military supply
system.
Cargo Unmanned Aerial Systems
The committee is aware of ongoing efforts to develop and
demonstrate cargo unmanned aerial systems to support logistics,
sustainment, and re-supply missions in intra-theater operations
where the use of high-value manned aircraft or ground convoys
to resupply troops is uneconomical, dangerous or accomplished
with difficulty. The committee is also aware that since
December 2011, the Department of Defense has been conducting a
Military User Assessment (MUA) of unmanned cargo helicopters
for supply missions in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and
that this MUA was the result of a merit based competitive
selection. However, the committee is concerned that a
Department of Defense program of record and associated funding
has not been established to transition this advanced
demonstration program into a fielded program of record.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department to implement
a program of record for this unmanned cargo helicopter system
as part of the fiscal year 2016 budget submission. In addition,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than October 1, 2014, on its plans to potentially create cargo
unmanned aerial systems programs of record.
Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense Antiterrorism and
Force Protection Efforts
The committee recognizes that there have been an increasing
number of insider attacks on U.S. military bases in recent
years. In November of 2009, 13 people were killed and 43 others
wounded when a soldier opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas. The
committee notes that following this shooting at Fort Hood, the
Secretary of Defense established the Department of Defense
Independent Review Related to Fort Hood. The review board
presented its findings and recommendations to the Secretary of
Defense in January 2010. In completing its review, the review
board limited the depth of its study in certain areas,
including force protection roles and responsibilities and
threat assessment programs, based on the Secretary of Defense's
stated intent to have the military departments conduct in-depth
follow-on reviews. However, the committee is concerned that
more incidents have occurred since this incident, including a
shooting at the Washington Navy Yard in September of 2013, as
well as a second shooting at Fort Hood in April of 2014.
The committee recognizes that insider attacks, such as
these, pose a different challenge to Department of Defense's
traditional antiterrorism and force protection efforts that
address external threats. Therefore, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a
comprehensive review of the inside-the-wire, antiterrorism and
force protection efforts of the Department of Defense, and
submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 30, 2015. The review should address the following areas:
(1) The extent to which the Department of Defense has
implemented the recommendations identified in the Department's
Independent Review Related to Fort Hood;
(2) The status of the follow-on studies to be completed by
the military departments and to what extent have any
recommendations from these studies been implemented;
(3) Additional actions taken by individual installations,
and the extent to which these efforts have been shared with
other installations; and
(4) The extent to which the Department's current
antiterrorism and force protection policies, guidance, and
standards address insider threats.
Coordination of Efforts to Track and Counter Weapons of Mass
Destruction
The committee remains concerned about the threats posed by
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to the safety and security of
the United States. Efforts to track and counter WMDs exist
within a significant number of Federal agencies. The committee
recognizes that counter-WMD missions outside of U.S. borders
reside within the purview of the Department of Defense. However
within U.S. borders, these missions fall within the
jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The committee notes that as outlined in the 2014
Quadrennial Defense Review, the combating WMD strategy of the
Department of Defense is to eliminate WMD threats prior to
entering the United States; however, the committee recognizes
that this may not always be possible. The committee is
concerned about the eventuality wherein a WMD device crosses
these jurisdictional boundaries, in particular, in regards to
the coordination efforts between the Department of Defense and
local, state, and Federal authorities. The committee believes
that in the case of such an occurrence, the cooperation between
the Department of Defense and other Government agencies should
be absolute in order to guarantee the elimination of WMD
threats. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by
September 1, 2014, on the coordination efforts between the
Department of Defense, the intelligence community, and local,
state, and Federal authorities for tracking and combating
weapons of mass destruction entering the United States. The
briefing should include details on the authority structures in
place within the Department of Defense to facilitate the
coordination efforts, as well as examples of how these
structures would operate in a realistic threat scenario.
Cross-Service Wargaming Capability
The committee recognizes that the information and insights
gained from wargaming are uniquely valuable for investigating
processes, organizing ideas, exploring issues, explaining
implications and identifying questions. Historically, wargames
have been instrumental in driving doctrinal and technological
change, such as those conducted by the Naval War College during
the interwar period leading up to World War II, which
contributed to advances in amphibious warfare and utilization
of carrier aviation. The committee believes that the Department
of Defense should continue to invest in a robust cross-service
advanced wargaming capacity to inform Department strategy and
doctrine in a fiscally constrained environment.
Department of Defense Humanitarian Mine Action and Conventional
Munitions Assistance Program
The committee notes that the budget request contained $5.8
million for the Department of Defense Humanitarian Mine Action
(HMA) program within operation and maintenance, Defense-wide.
Elsewhere in this Act, a related section would modify the
reporting requirements and definitions contained in section 407
of title 10, United States Code, regarding humanitarian
demining assistance and stockpiled conventional munitions
assistance. The goal of the HMA program is to reduce the
adverse effects of land mines and other explosive remnants of
war (ERW) on noncombatants while advancing geographic combatant
commander theater campaign plans and national security
objectives. The committee is aware that the Small Arms and
Light Weapons (SALW) office within the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency (DTRA), which has worked in conjunction with the HMA
program, has been discontinued and will no longer be available
to assist the Department of Defense with the removal of
conventional weapons, and physical security and stockpile
management of at-risk abandoned stockpiles of dangerous
explosive ordnance, small arms and light weapons, and man-
portable air defense systems (MANPADS). The committee notes the
excellent work that DTRA's SALW office has done throughout the
years in support of geographic combatant commander
requirements. The committee understands that some of the
technical support previously provided by DTRA's SALW office may
be provided by the Department of Defense Humanitarian Demining
Training Center (HDTC) and may be in addition to amounts
available under section 407 of title 10, United States Code,
for such expenses. While the committee is supportive of this
role for the HDTC, the committee remains concerned about a
potential gap in providing technical assistance for the
elimination of abandoned or at-risk stockpiles of conventional
weapons, including MANPADS, which pose a grave threat to United
States national security interests, particularly through Africa
and the Middle East.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense
Humanitarian Mine Action program to engage with international
partners and allies when practical, including allies from the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to ensure a coordinated and
holistic approach to achieve geographic combatant commander
security needs. As such, the committee recommends $10.8
million, an increase of $5.0 million, to ensure sufficient
resources to address these concerns, for conventional weapons
assistance including MANPADS.
Department of Defense Installation Security
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
conducted internal and independent reviews of the security
programs, policies, and procedures regarding security at
military installations following the tragic shooting at the
Washington Navy Yard. The committee notes that while these
reviews include findings and recommendations related to the
physical access control process, physical security
infrastructure capabilities, and force protection, the
Secretary of Defense's memorandum dated March 18, 2014, only
approved the implementation of four recommendations,
specifically to ``implement continued evaluation,'' ``establish
a DOD [Department of Defense] Insider Threat Management
Analysis Center,'' ``centralize authority, accountability, and
programmatic integration under a single Principal Staff
Assistant,'' and ``resource and expedite deployment of the
Identity Management Enterprise Services Architecture.''
While the committee believes these are important steps to
improve the security of military installations, the committee
is concerned that not enough emphasis has been placed on
improving the programs, policies, procedures, and
infrastructure supporting the physical security of
installations. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by December 31, 2014, that addresses the
following:
(1) An update on the Defense Installation Access Controls
Joint Capability Technology Demonstration, and whether an
opportunity exists to leverage commercially available tools
into its architecture;
(2) The frequency of installation anti-terrorism plans and
local vulnerability assessments, and the process for mitigating
or accepting identified risks;
(3) Trends or identified shortfalls in equipment,
personnel, training, or infrastructure that directly support
the physical security of military facilities and installations
and have been validated by Joint Staff Integrated Vulnerability
Assessments;
(4) Any changes that may be necessary to the physical
security and anti-terrorism/force protection policies and
procedures for vehicles and personnel entering military
installations and facilities; and
(5) Any authority gaps that may require legislation to
strengthen the physical security of military installations and
facilities.
Economic Warfare Policy
The committee continues to be concerned by the possibility
of adversaries utilizing economic warfare as a means to
undermine U.S. military advantages. As noted in the committee
report (H. Rept 112-78) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, ``[t]he committee is
concerned that our adversaries understand this dependency, and
are developing means to attack our military strength by
attacking our economy.''
In making those observations, the committee noted the
findings of a 2009 report from the Irregular Warfare Support
Program titled ``Economic Warfare: Risks and Responses,'' which
offered some plausible scenarios about how economic warfare
might be used against the United States. That report also made
a number of recommendations which have yet to be given serious
attention by the Department of Defense or the national security
establishment, including:
(1) Recognize that protecting the American economy and
industrial capability is a top defense priority that should be
properly funded and supported;
(2) Thoroughly research the hypothesis of economic warfare
described from an economic defense perspective; and
(3) Create a specialized threat finance unit to develop and
implement appropriate countermeasures to emerging economic
warfare threats.
Since that report was released, the committee has become
increasingly aware of the potentialities that cyber-enabled
technologies add to these economic and financial threats. For
example, the large-scale theft of intellectual property in
sectors of strategic importance to the United States poses a
direct challenge to U.S. technological superiority, but also a
long-term economic pressure as we are forced to develop
countermeasures against our own stolen defense technologies and
potentially lose market advantage in some non-military
technology sectors. The presence of large swaths of the
financial sector without an adequate monitoring framework that
could be exploited by terrorist or nation-state, such as dark
trading pools, credit default swaps, sovereign wealth funds,
naked short selling, or algorithmic trading, may be a
significant blind spot for the United States.
Given the pervasive nature of these threats, and the
apparent lack of clear policy guidance or organization to
address these issues, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a report to the Committee on Armed Services
of the House of Representatives by August 1, 2015, on the
Department's assessment of these activities. The report should
include:
(1) Articulation of what sorts of activities amount to
economic warfare upon the United States;
(2) Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the
Department of Defense in providing indications and warning of,
or protection against, acts of economic warfare;
(3) The current status of authorities and command structure
related to economic warfare; and
(4) Recommendations for improving the Department's
capabilities, authorities, or command structure, as well as
improving its coordination and support for interagency partners
in dealing with economic warfare threats.
Force Structure Assessment
The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy
conducted a Force Structure Assessment in 2012 that determined
the proposed composition of Navy surface and subsurface
vessels. This latest Force Structure Assessment determined that
an overall Navy fleet of 306 ships would be necessary to
support the overall defense strategy. Since the release of the
2012 Force Structure Assessment, the Secretary of Defense
released the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review which determined,
in part, the requirement for 11 aircraft carriers and 92 large
surface combatants. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to update the most recent Force Structure
Assessment and to submit it to the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 2015.
Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account
The General Accounting Office (now the Government
Accountability Office, or GAO) noted in a 1986 report (NSIAD-
86-173) that the purpose of the Foreign Currency Fluctuation,
Defense (FCF,D) account is to provide a mechanism for
stabilizing the portion of operation and maintenance (O&M) and
Military Personnel funding used for purchasing foreign goods
and services. The FCF,D provides funds to O&M when foreign
exchange rates are unfavorable (when losses occur) and receives
funds from O&M when the rates are favorable (when gains occur).
This ensures, as GAO stated, that ``any given O&M appropriation
for the purchase of foreign goods and services will purchase
the budgeted amount of goods and services, regardless of the
gains and losses of the dollar caused by currency
fluctuations.'' Based on the rationale for the genesis of the
FCF,D account, the committee believes that when foreign
currency rates are determined by the Department of Defense, the
current balance of funds in the FCF,D account should be
considered.
When the FCF,D account has a balance close to or at the cap
of $970.0 million, the committee believes the budgeted rates
should be adjusted to generate losses within the account,
thereby drawing down the FCF,D account balance. This would
reduce the O&M budget requirement for foreign goods and
services, allowing excess funds to be allocated to other
readiness programs without changing the budget topline.
However, as the FCF,D account realizes a net gain, these gains
remain in O&M and are used for purposes not originally
requested in the annual budget submission to Congress. Without
visibility on these transactions through a reprogramming
request, the committee cannot determine whether funds remaining
in the FCF,D account are being used to reduce current readiness
shortfalls. The committee notes that based on current foreign
currency rates for fiscal year 2014, GAO estimates that the O&M
accounts will realize a net gain of $154.7 million through the
FCF,D, and the Military Personnel accounts will realize a net
gain of $197.3 million.
The committee understands the difference between foreign
currency and unobligated balances. Unobligated balances from
O&M and Military Personnel appropriations that have expired for
less than 2 years can be moved into the account to re-establish
the FCF,D balance. The committee notes that from November 2012
to November 2013, unobligated balances for fiscal year 2012 O&M
funding increased by more than $860.0 million. These funds, if
left unobligated, should be transferred to the FCF,D account,
and future foreign currency rates adjusted to reduce the
balance and increase funding to readiness.
The committee recommends the Department of Defense take
into consideration the current balance within the FCF,D account
when determining foreign currency levels in upcoming budget
submissions. Accordingly, the committee recommends both a
reduction in the O&M budget for fiscal year 2015 as shown in
section 4301 of this Act and a reduction in the Military
Personnel budget for fiscal year 2015 as shown in section 4401
of this Act, and realigns those funds to support higher
priority defense requirements throughout the Department.
Information Management Systems for Response Forces
The committee is aware that the National Guard Bureau
Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST)
currently field a system called the CST Information Management
System, to provide a common operating picture, promote
information-sharing and real-time collaboration in an emergency
situation, and support the CST mission of assisting and
advising first responders and facilitating communications with
other Federal resources. The committee is also aware that in
the National Guard Chemical, Biological, Radiological and
Nuclear (CBRN) Response Enterprise, there are also other
capabilities such as the Unified Command Suite and the Joint
Incident Command Suite. Because each of these tools support
different echelons of command with different but related
capabilities, it is vital that there be a comprehensive
strategy for how to rationalize the current suite of tools, and
move forward with a common, interoperable, enterprise
information management solution.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by January 15, 2015, on a comprehensive strategy for developing
and fielding an information management architecture for the
Department's CBRN Response Enterprise. This strategy should
define the information architecture needs for the CBRN Response
Enterprise as well as its plans to achieve enterprise-wide data
interoperability for all operating elements within the Response
Enterprise.
Inspector General's Report on Over-Classification of National Security
Information
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees not later than
March 1, 2015, on the status and implementation of the
recommendations found in the Department of Defense Office of
the Inspector General's report, ``DOD Evaluation of Over-
Classification of National Security Information'' (DODIG-2013-
142). The Secretary's report should include specific actions
taken to implement the recommendations contained in the report
and timeframes for implementing the remaining recommendations.
Internet Governance
The committee is aware of a recent proposal by the
Department of Commerce to start the process of transferring the
remaining Department of Commerce-managed Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) functions to the global multi-
stakeholder community. The committee is also aware that such a
transition is supported by the Administration, many in
industry, and the international community.
The committee urges caution in such discussions to
understand the full ramifications of any transition of
responsibility, since the United States has played an important
role in overseeing the stability of the Internet. As noted in
recent testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives, ``Any pledge, commitment, or oath
made by the current ICANN [Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers] leadership is not binding unless there is
some accountability mechanism in place to back up that promise.
Until now, the United States has served that role. If the U.S.
Government is no longer providing that stability, an
alternative mechanism is needed to ensure that ICANN is held
accountable to the public interest.'' Additionally, as this
testimony points out, ``U.S. oversight has served as a
deterrent to stakeholders, including certain foreign countries,
who might otherwise choose to interfere with ICANN's operations
or manipulate the Domain Name Servers for political purposes.
For example, a country may want to censor a top-level domain
name or have ICANN impose certain restrictions on domain name
registries or registrars.''
Because of the Department of Defense's equities in a secure
and transparent Internet governance system, the committee
believes it is important to ensure that any new Internet
governance construct includes protections for the legacy .mil
domains and maintains the associated Internet protocol numbers.
Furthermore, the committee believes that any negotiations that
occur should include verifiable measures for maintaining a
separation between the policymaking and technical operation of
root-zone management functions and that such protections should
be a red line in interagency discussions and U.S. Government
positions.
Inventory of Counter Threat Finance Programs and Capabilities
The committee recognizes that illicit financial networks
are critical enablers to destabilizing networks and
transnational criminal organizations, including terrorist,
narco-traffickers, human smugglers, proliferators and actors
seeking to avoid sanctions. The Department of Defense invested
heavily in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan to create counter threat finance capabilities to
detect and combat such illicit activity. With the draw-down in
Afghanistan and the pivot to Asia, the committee is concerned
that the Department might begin to divest itself of such
counter threat finance capabilities in favor of traditional
military capabilities. However, the committee believes such
capabilities will continue to be of value to combat threats to
our national security, including state actors avoiding
sanctions or maintain black market economic activities. The
committee also believes such capabilities can be useful in
supporting surveillance and indications and warning for
national economic threats, such as attempts to perpetrate
economic warfare or sabotage. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by February 15, 2015, on an inventory and
sustainment plan for Department of Defense counter-threat
finance programs and capabilities.
Military Auxiliary Radio System
The committee continues to support the Military Auxiliary
Radio System (MARS), a Department of Defense-sponsored
auxiliary organization of volunteer amateur radio operators who
provide contingency communications support to the Department of
Defense and U.S. Government operations. In addition to
providing an important back-up to conventional communications
that is potentially vulnerable to disruption or degradation,
MARS can play a vital role in helping to ensure continuity of
Government and continuity of operations in the event of a
natural or man-made disaster. Given these advantages of MARS,
the committee is concerned by the Department's lack of action
in fully utilizing this capability. In the committee report (H.
Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee encouraged the
Department to clarify and maintain policy oversight of MARS
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and to update
Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 4650.02 entitled
``Mars Auxiliary Radio System (MARS)'' with respect to the
disestablishment of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Networks and Information Integration. The committee
notes, however, that these actions have not yet occurred.
The committee is aware of efforts to revise and update DODI
4650.02, which establishes policy, procedures, and
responsibilities for MARS. However, the revision is not yet
complete. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to ensure that any rewrite of the DODI 4650.02
effectively integrates MARS into the Department of Defense's
emergency communications plan; consolidates MARS operations
through appointment of an individual MARS manager to ensure
standardization of operating policies and procedures among the
three MARS branches within the Army, Air Force, and Navy-Marine
Corps; and directs the service secretaries and geographic
combatant commanders to integrate MARS more fully into their
operational planning and activities. In addition, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives by August 30,
2014, on the status of the revision of DODI 4650.02.
Nuclear Monitoring and Verification Technologies
The committee notes the Defense Science Board (DSB)
released a report in January 2014 titled, ``Assessment of
Nuclear Monitoring and Verification Technologies.'' The Board
took a comprehensive approach to evaluating the current U.S.
Government framework for monitoring nuclear proliferation. It
provided recommendations to improve existing tools and
capabilities, and identified new approaches to traditional
monitoring means. The committee notes the report's conclusion
that ``monitoring for proliferation should be a top national
security objective, but one for which the nation is not yet
organized or fully equipped to address.''
The DSB report included recommendations for the Department
of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of State,
the Department of Homeland Security, the Director of National
Intelligence, and the National Security Council. The report
identified the need for a common picture of the growing nuclear
proliferation threat. The DSB report recommended addressing the
threat through coordinated funding and authorities; improving
the U.S. Government tools to monitor, detect and assess the
problem; and improving the national testing capability by
allowing U.S. Government agencies to experiment and adopt best
practices and technologies.
The committee recognizes the importance and benefits of
implementing the DSB report recommendations, including but not
limited to addressing the lack of coordinated funding and
authorities across all the agencies. The committee believes the
integration and alignment of funding, authorities, and efforts
is key to improving monitoring and detection capabilities
within a comprehensive national framework. The committee is
encouraged that the Administration has begun to address the DSB
recommendations and understands that the Administration is
conducting an assessment of progress made thus far and
remaining gaps to inform the fiscal year 2016 budget request.
The committee expects both the Department of Defense and the
National Nuclear Security Administration to keep the committee
informed of each agency's respective progress in the
aforementioned areas to ensure that sufficient focus and
investments are made to improve monitoring and verification
tools, capabilities, and approaches to address future
proliferation threats.
Personnel Protection Equipment Budget Justification Material
Section 141 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) directed the Secretary of
Defense to submit with the annual budget request, a
consolidated budget display that describes and justifies all
programs and activities in the appropriations accounts for
operation and maintenance as well as research, development,
test, and evaluation that are associated with the development
and procurement of personnel protective equipment. The
committee is concerned that the Secretary of Defense has failed
to comply with this requirement.
The committee remains concerned that after 12 years of war
and billions of dollars spent to develop, produce, and field
the best available individual personnel protection equipment,
such as body armor and helmets, the Department of Defense
should not lose momentum in its search for better protection at
lower weight and lower cost for individual soldiers, marines,
airmen, and sailors. The committee continues to believe that
one of the important lessons of Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom is that research, development, and
acquisition (RDA) of improved ballistic protection for military
personnel must anticipate, not react, to likely threats. In
this regard, the committee remains determined to have
sufficient visibility to allow for comprehensive oversight of
the Department's RDA efforts as reflected in the annual budget
request accompanied by spending estimates projected over the
subsequent 5-year time frame or Future Years Defense Program.
Phased Modernization of Certain Navy Ships
In March 2014, the Navy proposed to reduce its operational
force structure of Ticonderoga-class cruisers and amphibious
dock landing ships (LSD). The Navy plans to take 14 ships out
of their normal deployment rotations and place them in long-
term phased modernization and maintenance to extend the
expected service life of the ships. According to the Navy, this
plan will allow it to retain the 11 cruisers and 3 amphibious
ships through the 2030s and into the 2040s.
The committee is concerned about the Navy's plan to reduce
its battle force structure by 14 ships, especially in light of
shortfalls in the force structure necessary to meet the
requirements of the National Military Strategy. Additionally,
the committee notes that while the Navy places Military Sealift
Command ships in reduced operating status, or ROS, on a regular
basis, surface combatant and amphibious ships are more complex
and their crews need more training before they can be certified
as being ready for deployment and major combat operations.
Further, the Navy states it has not reactivated any surface
combatant ships from long-term protective storage since the
1980s.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to report to the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 2015, on the extent to which the Navy
has identified:
(1) The potential costs and cost savings associated with
the Navy's phased modernization plan for the 11 cruisers and 3
LSDs;
(2) The operational benefits and risks associated with this
long-term plan; and
(3) The costs, savings, benefits, and risks of any
alternate plans that were considered before putting forth the
Navy's current plan.
Recognizing the Importance of Professional Military Education
Concerning Nuclear Deterrence Operations and Policy
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the
committee stated its views on the importance of nuclear
deterrence education in the U.S. armed services. The committee
referenced the 2008 Schlesinger report on Nuclear Weapons
Management, specifically, the phase-two report findings that
included several recommendations, including the following
recommendation concerning professional military education of
military officers:
``The Secretary of Defense should direct a comprehensive
review of the curricula of all academies, service schools, and
senior-level professional military education institutions and
provide recommendations for strengthening the understanding of
deterrence theory, strategy and policy on the part of military
leaders through revised or new courses, research, and analysis.
. . .''
In January 2014, the Secretary of Defense issued a
memorandum aimed at addressing multiple personnel failures in
both training and doctrine that jeopardized the nuclear
deterrence mission, including widespread cheating on tests and
other gross negligence on the part of nuclear officers. The
committee is encouraged by the Secretary's announcement of
several proactive measures to begin addressing personnel
failures within the nuclear enterprise and looks forward to
receiving the Secretary's recommendations following an
independent review.
In light of the Schlesinger report from 2008, which
highlights shortcomings of nuclear deterrence education in the
armed services, as well as the Secretary's memo from January
2014, which acknowledges operational and training deficiencies
among our nuclear officers, the committee recognizes the urgent
need for corrective actions. Absent a complete sea-change
within the armed services on the importance of nuclear
deterrence, embarrassing performance mistakes will continue to
occur. Therefore, the committee believes the Secretary should
take appropriate steps to refocus the military member education
to ensure it is adequately covering, across-the-board, the
essentials of nuclear deterrence policy and operations
(including such concepts as strategic stability and escalation
control), including at the National Defense University, the
military senior service colleges, and the CAPSTONE General and
Flag Officer Course.
Reconstitution of Air Force Weapons Storage Areas
The committee notes that the Air Force has completed the
report ``Reconstituting Air Force Weapons Storage Areas'' as
requested in the committee report (S. Rept. 113-44)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014. In its report, the Air Force acknowledged that it
currently does not have a funded project to reconstitute a
second Weapons Storage Area (WSA) for Air-Launched Cruise
Missiles (ALCMs). Additionally, the report states that the Air
Force's WSA modernization plan, the WSA Recapitalization
Corporate Initiative, is in the preliminary stages, and
indicates that it should be finalized in time to be programmed
in fiscal year 2016.
The committee is disappointed that the report did not
include an analysis of the requirements and costs of
reconstituting a second nuclear WSA capability for ALCMs and
the potential benefits or savings of shortening the
recapitalization timeframe as requested in S. Rept. 113-44.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to include the following information in the finalized plan for
the WSA Recapitalization Corporate Initiative:
(1) A business-case analysis of the requirements and costs
for reconstituting a second WSA for ALCMs;
(2) An analysis of potential cost-savings and benefits
achieved through a shortened recapitalization timeframe;
(3) An analysis of potential cost-saving and benefits of
advances in physical and security surveillance technologies;
and
(4) A validation of requirements.
Report on National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force
Recommendations
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(Public Law 112-239) established the National Commission on the
Structure of the Air Force to evaluate the Total Force force
structure of the Active, Guard, and Reserve Components of the
Department of the Air Force.
The committee is grateful for the time, effort, dedication,
and expertise of all the commissioners and their staff that was
applied to the development of the commission's report, despite
the burdensome and arcane interpretation and application of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463) to the
commission's deliberations. The committee thanks the
commissioners and staff for their many years of distinguished
service in key leadership positions of the national security
apparatus.
The commission was charged with reviewing six distinct
areas of the Air Force Total Force: (1) current and anticipated
requirements of combatant commanders; (2) personnel and mission
balance between all components of the Total Force; (3) capacity
and capability of the Total Force for addressing Homeland
Defense and Disaster Assistance requirements; (4) regular Air
Force ability to provide capability and capacity to the Reserve
Components; (5) operational tempo of Total Force components;
and (6) the affordability, efficiency, effectiveness,
capability, and readiness of the Total Force enterprise to meet
national security requirements.
The commission derived 42 distinct recommendations for the
President, Congress, and the Department of Defense to consider.
The committee notes that during House-Senate conference
deliberations on Public Law 112-239, it was acknowledged that
the Commission's report would not likely inform the President's
budget submission for fiscal year 2015 because of Department of
Defense budget process timelines, the date for submission of
the commission's report, and late enactment of Public Law 112-
239, which established the commission. The conferees expected
the report to be used to inform the Department's fiscal year
2016 budget submission to the Congress in calendar year 2015.
Air Force leadership testimony this year and recent
discussions and briefings with Air Force officials indicate
that Department of Defense officials are evaluating the
commission's 42 recommendations to determine whether or not
they could be viably institutionalized into the Air Force's
Total Force enterprise. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau, to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees not later than February 2,
2015, that includes the following:
(1) Assesses all 42 recommendations of the commission's
report;
(2) Establishes an official regular Air Force, Air Force
Reserve, and National Guard Bureau position on each
recommendation;
(3) Articulates which of the 42 recommendations are
incorporated into the President's fiscal year 2016 budget
request and fiscal year 2016 Future Years Defense Program for
the Department of Defense;
(4) Describes the method, measures of effectiveness, and
metrics established for evaluating each recommendation
incorporated into the budget request;
(5) Articulates the interim or final disposition of each
recommendation, and associated rationale, that is not
integrated into the fiscal year 2016 budget request;
(6) Includes dissenting views or opinions of any Air Force
Total Force component leadership associated with the evaluation
and disposition of any recommendation of the Commission's
report; and
(7) Any additional information that the Secretary of the
Air Force or the Chief of the National Guard Bureau desire to
include in the report.
Review of Military Standard to Protect Systems Against Electromagnetic
Pulse
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
maintains a military standard for protection of ground-based
systems and facilities performing critical and time-urgent
command, control, communications, computer, and intelligence
missions from high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP). This
military standard, known as MIL-STD 800-125-1 and -2, details
the performance, acceptance test, and verification test
requirements for identified systems, as well as HEMP-unique
acceptance and verification test techniques.
The committee is concerned that in the nearly 16 years
since this standard was last updated, technology may have
progressed in ways that have out-paced the ability of the
standard to ensure protection of designated systems. For
example, on the offensive side, the capability exists now to
buy commercial-off-the-shelf, non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse
(EMP) generators to provide EMP effects without the need for
nuclear devices. On the defensive side, the higher reliance on
commercial information technology hardware, and the
interconnection of such systems, results in a more complex
interaction between specific systems that must be characterized
to understand the propagation of EMP effects.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a review of MIL-STD 800-125-1 and -2 to determine if
the standards are in need of updating based on the current and
future projected threats, and whether the Department needs to
revise the frequency for revisiting testing against these
standards to ensure changes or updates to systems and
facilities have not opened up new vulnerabilities.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary to provide a
briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives by June 1, 2015, on the results of this review.
Security Risks Related to Foreign Investment in the United States
The committee is concerned that gaps may exist within the
current legislative and regulatory authorities for assessing
the potential security impact of certain real property
transactions involving the Federal Government and foreign-
controlled entities within the United States. As a result of
some recent transactions, entities controlled by foreign
interests have acquired access to onshore and offshore
properties within proximity of Department of Defense
facilities, ranges, and sensitive operating areas.
The committee is concerned that such access and the
proximities of associated properties could combine to
negatively affect military readiness and national security. The
committee notes that other government agencies are not required
to coordinate with the Department of Defense to assess the
potential effects of selling or leasing Federal property to
foreign-controlled entities seeking to operate in the vicinity
of military operating areas or installations. The committee
also notes that the current processes that examine foreign
investment in the United States do not cover all categories of
transactions or projects having the potential to adversely
affect Department of Defense capabilities and technologies, to
include the possible exposure of tactics, techniques, and
procedures. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with other relevant Federal
departments and agencies as appropriate, to conduct an
assessment of the current statutory and regulatory framework
governing real property transactions involving the Federal
Government and foreign-controlled entities within the United
States as they relate to military readiness and national
security. The review should address:
(1) The processes by which the Department of Defense and
the military services assess national security risks posed by
foreign investments in Federal properties or facilities within
proximity of Department of Defense operating areas or
installations;
(2) Actions that may be taken by the Department of Defense
to mitigate such risks;
(3) The manner in which the Department of Defense
coordinates efforts with other Federal agencies to monitor
proposed real property transactions involving the Federal
Government and foreign-controlled entities within the United
States; and
(4) Procedures by which the Secretary of Defense could
communicate concerns to other Federal departments and agencies
regarding a proposed real property transaction with a foreign-
controlled entity due to proximity to Department of Defense
facilities, ranges, or operating areas.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees not later than
January 5, 2015, on the findings of the review and on any
recommendations that the Secretary may have for improving the
current statutory and regulatory framework for monitoring real
property transactions involving the Federal Government and
foreign-controlled entities within the United States for
possible national security implications. Within 90 days after
the date of submission, the Comptroller General of the United
States should conduct a sufficiency review of the report
submitted by the Secretary and report the results of that
review to the congressional defense committees.
Spectrum Operations Centers
The committee is aware that U.S. Strategic Command operates
the Joint Electronic Warfare Center (JEWC) at Lackland Air
Force Base, Texas. An important aspect of the JEWC is its role
in connecting electronic warfare (EW) resources to the
warfighter, and the committee believes that the JEWC provides
critical operational EW support to the combatant commands,
including combat operations support, opposing force EW during
operational training exercises, Joint and North Atlantic Treaty
Organization EW reprogramming, joint capabilities technology
demonstration support and modeling analysis and simulation.
The committee believes that the capabilities of the JEWC
could be enhanced by having connections with sister
organizations within each of the military services to act as
spectrum coordination centers that would coordinate service-
specific resources and needs into the planning and operations
of the individual service training, exercises, and operations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments,
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by June 1, 2015, that describes the use case for such spectrum
operations centers, as well as a business-case analysis for
designating or developing organizations to act in such a role.
The briefing should examine the relative costs and benefits of
leveraging existing organizations, as well as how such an
organization could support full-scope electromagnetic
operations, including EW, spectrum management, and cyberspace
operations.
Standing Joint Force Headquarters for Elimination
The committee is aware that as a result of direction
received in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, U.S. Strategic
Command (STRATCOM) established the Standing Joint Force
Headquarters for Elimination (SJFHQ-E) in 2012 with the purpose
of planning, training for, and executing command and control
functions during weapons of mass destruction (WMD) elimination
missions. However, the committee believes that the planning and
training mission of the SJFHQ-E appears to have significant
overlap with the STRATCOM Center for Combating WMD (SCC-WMD),
which performs a similar function for the larger mission space
of combating WMD. The committee is also aware that prior to the
formation of the SJFHQ-E, the command and control functions for
elimination missions were performed through the establishment
of a Joint Task Force for Elimination (JTF-E), which was only
established if and when it was deemed necessary based on the
scope of the elimination mission. In addition, the committee
notes that in its formation, the SJFHQ-E assumed the tasks,
missions, and operations of the Joint Elimination Coordination
Element (JECE) which previously functioned as the core of any
JTF-E upon its formation.
The committee believes that combating and eliminating WMD
is of the utmost importance for national security. However, the
committee also believes that in the current austere fiscal
climate, the additional cost and bureaucracy associated with a
standing headquarters must provide necessary, differentiable
capability. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by
September 30, 2014, on the added benefit of the SJFHQ-E. The
briefing should discuss unique value added by the formation of
a standing headquarters, and compare the current capabilities
and associated costs of the SJFHQ-E with those capabilities
that existed previously among the SCC-WMD and the existing
JECE.
Transfer of Coast Guard HC-130H Aircraft to the Air Force for U.S.
Forest Service Equipment Modifications
Section 1098 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) addressed the transfer of
Department of Defense and U.S. Coast Guard aircraft to other
U.S. Government departments for wildfire suppression and other
purposes.
The committee notes that discussions among the Department
of the Air Force, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of the Army, and
the U.S. Forest Service have been extremely collaborative and
productive as they relate to the complexity of transferring
aircraft to and between each of the organizations. The
committee was informed through briefings with officials from
these agencies that there was ambiguity associated with the
word ``transfer'' in section 1098(a) related to the exchange of
aircraft between the U.S. Coast Guard and the Air Force.
According to the General Counsel of the Air Force, the word
``transfer'' in section 1098(a) would require the U.S. Coast
Guard to convey title, engineering services, and technical
authority of the HC-130H to the Air Force, which the committee
understands is a cumbersome and paperwork-intensive process to
perform for the short period of time that the Air Force would
possess the aircraft for modifications and depot-level
maintenance prescribed in section 1098(a). Furthermore, it was
explained to the committee that the Air Force performs depot-
level maintenance and modifications of HC-130H aircraft on
behalf of the Coast Guard without having to convey title,
engineering services, and technical authority officially to the
Air Force. Lastly, and most concerning to the committee, is
that if the U.S. Coast Guard had to officially convey title,
engineering services, and technical authority to the Air Force
using the strict interpretation of the word ``transfer,'' these
actions would significantly delay the Air Force from performing
the required depot-level maintenance and firefighting
modifications required by section 1098(a), and thus delay
providing much needed firefighting capacity improvements to the
U.S. Forest Service. The committee did not intend the
articulated interpretation of the word ``transfer'' to impede
implementation of section 1098(a) for exchange of aircraft
between the U.S. Coast Guard and the Air Force.
Therefore, the committee supports the current execution
plan of the Air Force, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Forest
Service as briefed to the committee in February 2014 for
modifying and providing firefighting capable HC-130H aircraft
to the U.S. Forest Service in the most expeditious manner. The
committee also expects the Air Force and U.S. Coast Guard to
interpret the word ``transfer'' in section 1098(a) broadly as
to mean not conveying title, engineering services, and
technical authority of HC-130H aircraft from the U.S. Coast
Guard to the Air Force in execution and compliance with section
1098(a).
U.S. Transportation Command Report on Operational and Tactical Control
of All Department of Defense Executive Airlift Aircraft
The committee notes that the Commander, U.S. Transportation
Command (CUSTC) is the distribution process owner for the
Department of Defense. However, CUSTC is responsible for the
operational tasking, scheduling, and tactical control of only
Department of the Air Force executive airlift and special
airlift mission (EA/SAM) aircraft. The committee notes that
Department of the Navy and the Department of the Army EA/SAM
aircraft are excluded from CUSTC's control, and are not
apportioned or allocated to meet CUSTC EA/SAM airlift
requirements or airlift requirements of any other organization
other than the service that owns and operates the EA/SAM
aircraft. The committee believes this is an inefficient concept
of operations in meeting EA/SAM airlift requirements of the
Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, U.S.
Transportation Command to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees not later than February 2, 2015, that
assesses the feasibility, capability, viability, effectiveness,
and efficiency of the CUSTC assuming the role and
responsibility of operational tasking, scheduling, and tactical
control of all Department of Defense EA/SAM aircraft to meet
EA/SAM airlift requirements of the Department of Defense.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
Section 1001--General Transfer Authority
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to make
transfers between any amounts of authorizations for fiscal year
2015 in division A of this Act. This section would limit the
total amount transferred under this authority to $4.0 billion.
This section would also require prompt notification to Congress
of each transfer made.
Section 1002--Repeal of Limitation on Inspector General Audits of
Certain Financial Statements
This section would strike subsection (d) of section 1008 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
(Public Law 107-107) to permit an increase in the number of
auditors available to provide independent reviews of audit
practices throughout the Department of Defense, thus helping
the Department streamline its efforts to ensure proper
financial management. To comply with the Financial Improvement
and Audit Readiness Plan to be audit ready by 2017, the
Department of Defense requires a sufficient number of auditors
within the Office of the Inspector General to provide
independent audit reviews throughout the Department.
Section 1003--Authority to Transfer Funds to the National Nuclear
Security Administration to Sustain Nuclear Weapons Modernization and
Naval Reactors
This section would provide the Secretary of Defense the
authority to transfer up to $150.0 million to the nuclear
weapons and naval reactor programs of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) if the amount authorized to be
appropriated or otherwise made available for the weapons
activities of the NNSA is less than $8.7 billion (the amount
specified for fiscal year 2015 in the report required by
section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84)).
Section 1004--Management of Defense Information Technology Systems
This section would amend section 2222 of title 10, United
States Code, to expand certification requirements, investment
review processing and enterprise architecture requirements from
defense business systems to all defense information technology
systems.
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities
Section 1011--Extension of Authority to Support Unified Counter-drug
and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia
This section would extend, by 1 year, support to the
unified counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in the
Republic of Colombia originally authorized by section 1021 of
the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), and most recently
amended by section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
Section 1012--Three-Year Extension of Authority of Department of
Defense to Provide Additional Support for Counterdrug Activities of
Other Governmental Agencies
This section would extend, by 3 years, the authority of the
Department of Defense to provide additional support for
counter-drug activities of other governmental agencies
originally authorized by section 1004 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510),
and most recently amended by section 1005 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81).
Section 1013--Submittal of Biannual Reports on Use of Funds in the Drug
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide Account on the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate
The section would amend section 1009(a) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) to add the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate as recipients of a biannual report on the use of funds
in the drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-
wide account.
Section 1014--National Guard Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug
Activities
This section would amend section 112 of title 32, United
States Code, adding the operations and activities provided by
the National Guard Counter-drug Training Centers within the
United States for Federal, State, and local law enforcement to
the items for which the Secretary of Defense may provide funds
to the governor of a state who submits to the Secretary a state
drug interdiction and counter-drug activities plan.
Section 1015--Sense of Congress on Mexico and Central America
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
Department of Defense should continue to support programs that
combat illicit networking in the United Mexican States and
Central America.
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Section 1021--Definition of Combatant and Support Vessel for Purposes
of the Annual Plan and Certification Relating to Budgeting for
Construction of Naval Vessels
This section would define the term ``combatant and support
vessel'' that is used to support Department of the Navy's 30-
year shipbuilding plan.
Section 1022--National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund
This section would create a National Sea-Based Deterrence
Fund to manage the obligation and expenditures for the advanced
procurement or construction of nuclear-powered strategic
ballistic missile submarines.
Section 1023--Elimination of Requirement that a Qualified Aviator or
Naval Flight Officer Be in Command of an Inactivated Nuclear-Powered
Aircraft Carrier Before Decommissioning
This section would authorize an exception to section
5942(a) of title 10, United States Code, and allow a nuclear-
powered aircraft carrier to be commanded by a non-aviation
officer during an inactivation period that leads to the
permanent decommissioning and disposal of such an aircraft
carrier.
Section 1024--Limitation on Expenditure of Funds until Commencement of
Planning of Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the U.S.S. George
Washington
This section would limit the expenditure of funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense for fiscal year 2015 until the Secretary
of Defense obligates funds to commence the planning and long
lead time material procurement associated with the refueling
and complex overhaul of the USS George Washington (CVN-73).
Section 1025--Sense of Congress Recognizing the Anniversary of the
Sinking of the U.S.S. Thresher
This section would express the sense of Congress in
recognition of the anniversary of the sinking of the USS
Thresher.
Section 1026--Availability of Funds for Retirement or Inactivation of
Ticonderoga Class Cruisers or Dock Landing Ships
This section would limit the obligation and expenditure of
funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available
for fiscal year 2015 for the retirement, inactivation, or
storage of Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Whidbey Island-class
amphibious ships. This section would also require the
modernization of two Ticonderoga-class cruisers to begin in
fiscal year 2015.
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism
Section 1031--Extension of Authority to Make Rewards for Combating
Terrorism
This section would extend the authority through fiscal year
2015 for the Secretary of Defense to offer and make rewards to
a person providing information or nonlethal assistance to U.S.
Government personnel or Government personnel of allied forces
participating in a combined operation with U.S. Armed Forces
conducted outside the United States against international
terrorism or providing such information or assistance that is
beneficial to force protection associated with such an
operation.
Section 1032--Prohibition on Use of Funds to Construct or Modify
Facilities in the United States to House Detainees Transferred from
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
using any of the funds available to the Department of Defense
during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act and ending on December 31, 2015, to modify or
construct any facility in the United States, its territories,
or possessions to house any detainee transferred from U.S.
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the purposes of
detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the effective
control of the Department of Defense.
Section 1033--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the Transfer or
Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
This section would prohibit the use of any amounts
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to
the Department of Defense to be used during the period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending
on December 31, 2015, to transfer or release detainees at U.S.
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United
States, its territories, or possessions.
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations
Section 1041--Modification of Department of Defense Authority for
Humanitarian Demining Assistance and Stockpiled Conventional Munitions
Assistance Programs
This section would modify the reporting requirements and
definitions contained in section 407 of title 10, United States
Code, regarding humanitarian demining assistance and stockpiled
conventional munitions assistance. Elsewhere in this report,
the committee expresses concern that the Department of Defense
Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA) program has insufficient
resources for HMA and conventional munitions assistance
programs.
Section 1042--Authority to Accept Voluntary Services of Law Students
and Persons Studying to be Paralegals
This section would amend section 1588 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretaries of the military
departments to institute unpaid internship and externship
programs for law students.
Section 1043--Expansion of Authority for Secretary of Defense to Use
the Department of Defense Reimbursement Rate for Transportation
Services Provided to Certain Non-Department of Defense Entities
This section would amend section 2642 of title 10, United
States Code, which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to use
the Department of Defense reimbursement rate for transportation
services provided to certain non-Department of Defense
entities. That authority allows the Department to provide
transportation services covered by that section at the same
rate that the transportation element in Department of Defense
charges Department of Defense units for similar services.
Section 1044--Repeal of Authority Relating to Use of Military
Installations by Civil Reserve Air Fleet Contractors
This section would repeal section 9513 of title 10, United
States Code, relating to the use of military installations by
commercial air carriers doing business with the Department of
Defense. Under this program, the Secretary of the Air Force was
authorized for Air Force installations, or in coordination with
the Secretary of the other military services for other than Air
Force military installations, to enter into contracts with air
carriers authorizing the use of designated installations as a
weather alternative, as a technical stop not involving the
enplaning or deplaning of passengers or cargo, or, in the case
of an installation within the United States, for other
commercial purposes but was never utilized.
Section 1045--Certification and Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Aviation Foreign Internal Defense Program
This section would prohibit U.S. Special Operations Command
from obligating any funds available for fiscal year 2015 for
the Aviation Foreign Internal Defense Program until the
Secretary of Defense provides a certification to the
congressional defense committees that validates program
requirements.
Section 1046--Submittal of Procedures and Reports Relating to Sensitive
Military Operations
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of 25 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated by
this Act or otherwise available for fiscal year 2015 for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low Intensity Conflict until the congressional
defense committees receive the procedures required by section
130f(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, and the report
required by section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
Sections 1041 and 1043 of Public Law 113-66 are critical to
the congressional defense committees' oversight of targeted
lethal and capture operations conducted by the armed forces.
The committee is troubled that the Department has missed the
statutory deadlines for submitting these materials.
Section 1047--Limitation on Use of Russian-Flagged Airlift Aircraft to
Support the Airlift Movement Requirements of the United States
Transportation Command
This section would allow the use of Russian-flagged airlift
aircraft to support airlift movement requirements of U.S.
Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) only after the Commander,
U.S. Transportation Command certifies to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives,
for each manifested cargo mission, that utilizing Russian-
flagged airlift aircraft is the only means available to
TRANSCOM to execute that particular manifested cargo delivery
mission.
Section 1048--Prohibition on Reduction of Force Structure at Lajes Air
Force Base until Completion of Assessments by Secretary of Defense and
General Accounting Office
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force
from reducing force structure at Lajes Air Force Base, Azores,
Portugal, until the following occur: the Secretary of Defense
concludes a European Infrastructure Consolidation Assessment
and briefs the congressional defense committees as to the
results; and the Comptroller General of the United States
reviews such assessment and conducts an independent assessment
of possible operational capabilities of Lajes Air Force Base.
Section 1049--Limitation on Removal of C-130 Aircraft
This section would restrict the ability of the Secretary of
the Air Force to remove a C-130 aircraft from a unit of the
regular or reserve components of the Air Force that is tasked
with the modular airborne fire fighting system mission, or from
a unit that is formally associated with a unit that is tasked
with such mission, until the date on which the Secretary of the
Air Force certifies to the congressional defense committees
that such mission will not be negatively affected by the
removal of such aircraft.
Section 1050--Conditions on Army National Guard and Active Army Force
Structure Changes Pending Comptroller General Report
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense and
Secretary of the Army, during fiscal year 2015, from reducing
the end strength for active duty personnel of the Army below
490,000; reducing the end strength for Selected Reserve
personnel of the Army National Guard below 350,000; or
transferring AH-64 attack helicopters from the Army National
Guard to the regular Army.
This section would also require the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess and validate the methods the Army
and the Department of Defense Office of Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation used to determine the future force structure
of the Army, to include the appropriate mix between Active,
Guard, and Reserve Component forces and submit a report to the
congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2015.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee describes its larger
concerns regarding the Army's end strength and force structure
reductions. As a result of these concerns, the committee also
recommends increases in funding for procurement and operation
and maintenance accounts to accelerate the conversions of UH-
60A to UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters, and additional funding to
procure six additional UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters to address
Army National Guard modernization shortfalls. Finally, the
committee recommends additional funding for operation and
maintenance readiness accounts to increase overall training
opportunities and increase depot-level maintenance in the Army
National Guard.
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports
Section 1061--Protection of Defense Mission-Critical Infrastructure
from Electromagnetic Pulse and High-Powered Microwave Systems
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a certification to the congressional defense committees
that defense mission-critical infrastructure requiring
electromagnetic pulse protection that receives power supply
from commercial or other non-military sources, is protected
from the adverse effects of man-made or naturally occurring
electromagnetic pulse and high-powered microwave weapons.
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
dependent on commercial power to supply most of its needs and
understands that such commercial power could be susceptible to
disruption or degradation from electromagnetic pulse or high-
powered microwave events. The committee believes that much of
the Department's defense mission-critical infrastructure
includes planning and mitigation measures against such threats,
but remains concerned that some critical capabilities may not
have been included in previous reviews. The committee intends
to determine if there is reason for further concern, but
recognizes that remediation activities will have to be
resourced by other organizations outside of the Department of
Defense.
Section 1062--Response of the Department of Defense to Compromises of
Classified Information
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees within
60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on actions
taken by the Secretary regarding significant compromises of
classified information. The report shall include a description
of any changes to Department of Defense policies or guidance
relating to significant compromises of classified information,
an overview of mitigation efforts, a description of the
resources dedicated to efforts relating to such compromises, a
description of the Secretary's plan to continue evaluating and
mitigating any damages, and a general description and estimate
of the cost associated with mitigating such compromises. This
section would also require updates to the initial report on a
semiannual basis during calendar years 2015-18.
Section 1063--Report and Briefing to Congress on Procurement and
Inspection of Armored Commercial Passenger-Carrying Vehicles to
Transport Civilian Employees of Department of Defense
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report and detailed briefing on the Department of
Defense's policies and procedures for procuring and inspecting
armored commercial passenger-carrying vehicles for transporting
civilian employees of the Department.
Section 1064--Study on Joint Analytic Capability of the Department of
Defense
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
commission an independent assessment of the joint analytic
capabilities of the Department of Defense to support strategy,
plans, and force development, and their link to resource
decisions. This section would further require the independent
entity selected for the conduct of the assessment to provide a
report on the assessment to the Secretary not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and require the
Secretary to transmit the report to the congressional defense
committees not later than 90 days after the date of the
Secretary's receipt of the report.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 1071--Technical and Clerical Amendments
This section would make a number of technical and clerical
amendments of a non-substantive nature to existing law.
Section 1072--Sale or Donation of Excess Personal Property for Border
Security Activities
This section would amend section 2576a of title 10, United
States Code, ``Excess personal property: sale or donation for
law enforcement activities'' to include border security
activities and consultation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security when a transfer relates to the Department of Homeland
Security.
The committee believes border security activities of the
Department of Homeland Security should be considered alongside
counterdrug and counterterrorism activities when determining
the sale or donation of excess personal property for law
enforcement activities.
Section 1073--Revision to Statute of Limitations for Aviation Insurance
Claims
This section would amend section 44309 of title 49, United
States Code, by clarifying that the claimant for civil actions
must present a claim to the Secretary of Transportation and
have it denied before instituting a civil action against the
United States. Additionally, this section would clarify that an
insurance claim must be made within two years of the loss, or
for an insurance claim made by a person with whom the insured
has no privity of contract, the earlier of either 60 days after
final judgment by a court or 6 years after the date of the
loss.
Section 1074--Pilot Program for the Human Terrain System
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
conduct a pilot program to utilize Human Terrain System assets
in the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility to support
Phase 0 shaping operations and to support the theater security
cooperation plans of the geographic combatant commander.
Section 1075--Unmanned Aircraft Systems and National Airspace
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to enter
into a memorandum of understanding with a non-Department of
Defense entity that is engaged in the test range program
authorized under section 332(c) of the Federal Aviation
Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law
112-95). Such entity would be allowed access to non-regulatory
special use airspace if such access is used by the entity as
part of such test range program and does not interfere with the
activities of the Secretary or otherwise interrupt or delay
missions or training of the Department of Defense.
Section 1076--Sense of Congress on the Life and Achievements of Dr.
James R. Schlesinger
The section would express the sense of Congress on the life
and achievements of Dr. James R. Schlesinger, who served the
country as the Director, Central Intelligence, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Secretary of Energy.
Section 1077--Reform of Quadrennial Defense Review
This section would amend section 118 of title 10, United
States Code, to reform the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) by
modifying the review and reporting elements, modifying the role
of the National Defense Panel (NDP), and requiring a new
Quadrennial National Security Threats and Trends Report
(QNSTTR).
This section would replace the QDR with a Defense Strategy
Review (DSR), which would be required on a 4-year cycle. As
expressed elsewhere in this report, the committee believes that
the strategy review undertaken by the Department of Defense
has, over time, strayed further from the intent of Congress,
and the 2014 QDR, in particular, missed an opportunity to
reshape the longer-term direction of the Nation's forces, their
missions and capabilities, and needed resources.
Therefore, the modified review and reporting elements
contained in this section are intended to better address the
fundamental components of a strategy over the near-, mid-, and
far-term time horizons, and would include:
(1) The assumed U.S. national security interests and
strategic environment;
(2) The prioritized missions of the Armed Forces;
(3) The force structure, capabilities, presence, readiness,
personnel composition and skillsets, organizational structures,
and resources that are needed to fulfill the missions;
(4) An assessment of gaps, shortfalls, and risks;
(5) The assumed roles and capabilities provided by other
U.S. Government agencies and by allies and partners; and
(6) A sensitivity analysis to understand the relationships
and specific tradeoffs between missions, risks, and resources.
This section would also require two reviews of the
strategic environment that would precede the DSR and thus
inform it. The first review, the QNSTTR, would be required of
the Department of Defense and consist of the Department's
assessment of U.S. national security interests and threats and
trends that could affect those interests in the near-, mid-,
and far-term. The second review would be required of the NDP,
which would be established prior to the DSR, and consist of an
independent assessment of the strategic environment and require
the NDP to provide recommendations on the strategic issues that
should be examined in the DSR.
The NDP would further be required to assess the report on
the DSR upon its completion, thus largely maintaining the
duties it is currently prescribed in section 118 of title 10,
United States Code.
Section 1078--Resubmission of 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
resubmit a report on the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 2014
that was submitted, as required by section 118(d) of title 10,
United States Code, to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives not later than October
1, 2014.
In the resubmitted report, the Secretary would be required
to include: an articulation of a defense program for the next
20 years; an identification of the budget plan that would be
required to provide sufficient resources to execute
successfully the full range of missions called for in that
national defense strategy at a low-to-moderate level of risk,
and any additional resources required to achieve such a level
of risk; and recommendations that are not constrained to comply
with and are fully independent of the budget submitted to
Congress by the President pursuant to section 1105 of title 31,
United States Code. This section would limit authorized fiscal
year 2015 funds for the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy until the report is resubmitted to Congress.
While the committee appreciates the work that went into the
2014 QDR, it remains concerned that these reviews have grown
less compliant with the law and strayed further from the intent
of Congress. The committee believes the QDR should provide a
mechanism for setting the priorities of the Department of
Defense, shaping the force, guiding capabilities and resources,
and adjusting the organization to respond to changes in the
strategic environment. In addition, it should assist Congress
in better understanding the relationships and tradeoffs between
missions, risks, and resources, particularly in light of
geopolitical changes and domestic developments in the last few
years.
The committee believes the 2014 QDR missed a major
opportunity to bring together key national security
stakeholders and strategic thinkers in the Department to
reshape the longer-term direction of the Nation's forces, their
missions and capabilities, and needed resources. Instead,
inconsistent with the QDR review and report requirements in
sections 118(a) and (b) of title 10, United States Code, the
2014 QDR focused largely on the planned force structure
associated with the 5 year Future Years Defense Program, and it
contained a strategy that assumes increased risk to the force,
without specifying the resources required to execute the
strategy at a low-to-moderate level of risk.
The committee believes that much of the information to be
included in the re-submitted report was produced over the
course of the review and could be provided to the committee in
a reasonable amount of time.
Section 1079--Sense of Congress Regarding Counter-Improvised Explosive
Devices
This section would express the sense of the Congress on the
need to remain dedicated to retaining knowledge, technological
expertise, as well as the lessons learned from Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom regarding counter-
improvised explosive device tactics, techniques, and
procedures.
Section 1080--Enhancing Presence and Capabilities and Readiness Posture
of United States Military in Europe
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees not later than
60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act a plan that
identifies the capabilities and capacities required by the U.S.
Armed Forces to counter or mitigate conventional,
unconventional, or subversive activities of the Russian
Federation and to meet operational plan requirements for a
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Article 5 response. This
section would also require the Secretary to identify any
readiness deficiencies of U.S. Armed Forces in the area of
responsibility of U.S. European Command and recommend actions,
resources, and timelines to correct any deficiencies.
Section 1081--Determination and Disclosure of Transportation Costs
Incurred by the Secretary of Defense for Congressional Trips Outside
the United States
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
determine and disclose the transportation costs incurred by the
Department of Defense for certain congressional trips outside
the United States.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Furlough of Employees Compensated Through Working Capital Funds
Working capital fund (WCF) employees are financed through
sales revenue rather than direct appropriations. These unique
civilian Federal employees work on the basis of no-year money,
and the committee is concerned that the Department of Defense,
when including WCF employees in the fiscal year 2013 furloughs
of Department of Defense civilians, failed to offer sufficient
justification of savings or an adequate legal argument to
override statutes prohibiting management of these employees on
any basis other than funded workload. Based on testimony of the
military services and information gathered from facilities
throughout the country, it is clear to the committee that the
readiness consequences of furloughing working capital fund
employees were grave. Furloughs at the Nation's organic
industrial facilities cost the government money by raising
overhead costs or causing transfer of work to more expensive
venues, disrupted the supply chain, affected mission-critical
work, and delayed the return of key weapon systems to the
warfighter for training and operations. Further, these
furloughs wreaked havoc on the private lives and morale of tens
of thousands of Federal employees and created long-term
consequences for the Department when electricians, engineers,
and highly skilled depot artisans, among others, resigned,
citing financial hardship.
The committee finds this ineffective approach to managing
overall shortfalls in the operation and maintenance account
unacceptable because of the short- and long-term consequences.
Working capital funds are required to ``break even,'' and the
loss in productivity, workforce availability, and capability
from unnecessary furloughs endangers the viability of the funds
and increases the cost to the Department, customers, and the
taxpayer by increasing overhead and rates. The committee
believes that in the event of any type of furlough of civilian
employees, WCF employees should be managed consistent with
guidance issued for operations of the Department during a lapse
in appropriations.
Overtime Pay for Department of the Navy Employees Performing
Maintenance on the Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Forward Deployed in Japan
The committee notes that it has not received the report
required by section 1105 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383)
regarding overtime pay for Department of the Navy employees who
are maintaining the Navy's forward deployed nuclear aircraft
carrier in Japan. The committee is aware that the Secretary of
the Navy, due to extenuating circumstances associated with the
closure of Building 197 at the Washington Navy Yard, did not
deliver the required report on use and cost of the authorized
overtime pay, and recommendations regarding extension of the
authority, to the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) until mid-March of this year, more than 5
months late. Late delivery by the Navy precluded OPM from
achieving its subsequent reporting deadline of March 31, 2014.
While agreeing in substance with extending overtime pay for
Department of the Navy employees who are maintaining the Navy's
forward deployed nuclear aircraft carrier in Japan, the
committee is reluctant to do so without benefit of the report
from OPM. The committee urges the Director of OPM to facilitate
completion of the report as soon as possible to ensure timely
and appropriate compensation for these civilian employees who
are critical to the readiness of U.S. naval forces.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1101--One-Year Extension of Authority To Waive Annual
Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for Federal
Civilian Employees Working Overseas
This section would extend, for 1 year, the authority to
waive the limitations on the amount of premium pay that may be
paid to a Federal civilian employee who performs certain work
in an overseas location that falls under the responsibility of
U.S. Central Command, an overseas location that falls under the
responsibility of U.S. Africa Command, in support of a military
operation, or in response to an emergency declared by the
President. The payment may not exceed the annual rate of salary
payable to the Vice President under section 104 of title 3,
United States Code.
Section 1102--One-Year Extension of Discretionary Authority to Grant
Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to Personnel on Official Duty in a
Combat Zone
This section would extend by 1 year the temporary
discretionary authority to Federal agencies to grant
allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to those
provided to members of the foreign service to an agency's
civilian employees on official duty in a combat zone.
Section 1103--Revision to List of Science and Technology Reinvention
Laboratories
This section would amend the list of Science and Technology
Reinvention Laboratories in section 1105(a) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) to include the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral
and Social Sciences and the Space and Missile Defense Command
Technical Center.
Section 1104--Permanent Authority for Experimental Personnel Program
for Scientific and Technical Personnel
This section would remove the sunset date and annual
reporting requirement for section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public
Law 105-261).
The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency has used this alternative personnel hiring
authority to great effect since its inception. Furthermore, the
committee believes that given the limited scope of this
authority, the fact that there have been no reports of misuse
or abuse in 15 years, and the fact that it does not authorize
any new civilian billets for the Department of Defense, this
authority should be made permanent. The committee believes that
such unique hiring authorities will be important tools for the
technical community in the Department to recruit, hire, and
retain the Nation's top scientific and engineering talent.
Section 1105--Temporary Authorities for Certain Positions at Department
of Defense Research and Engineering Facilities
This section would modify section 1107 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) to provide direct hiring authority to the laboratory
director of specified laboratories for undergraduate and
certain graduate students enrolled in the scientific,
technical, engineering, or mathematics programs at institutions
of higher education on a temporary or term basis.
Section 1106--Judicial Review of Merit Systems Protection Board
Decisions Relating to Whistleblowers
This section would extend by 3 years a pilot provision of
the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (Public Law 101-
12) to allow whistleblowers to appeal cases from the Merit
Systems Protection Board to any circuit court of appeals with
jurisdiction rather than being restricted to the Federal
circuit.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee's continued oversight of national security
matters relating to foreign nations and the lessons learned
from that oversight, as well as the demands of current events,
has translated into four legislative focus areas in this title:
continued military commitment to, and U.S. presence in, the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; strengthening security force
assistance, particularly to those nations that have chosen to
partner with the United States to combat terrorism; bolstering
U.S., allied, and partner capabilities to deter aggression; and
addressing emerging and evolving threats in an increasingly
uncertain global security environment.
First, the committee recognizes that the gains in Afghan
security, governance, and society have come as a result of the
immense sacrifices made by U.S. and coalition forces and the
Afghan people. The committee continues to believe that the
United States has a vital national security interest in
Afghanistan, and that Al Qaeda and its affiliates must be
denied safe havens in Afghanistan and elsewhere to launch
attacks against the United States and its allies. The
committee, therefore, supports the post-2014 North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) mission known as Operation Resolute
Support, and it urges the President to announce a residual U.S.
presence in Afghanistan to demonstrate U.S. commitment,
reassure the Afghan people, and encourage other NATO and
coalition partners to commit to a post-2014 mission and
presence in Afghanistan. The committee remains optimistic that
a new Afghan president will sign the Bilateral Security
Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan, which
would serve as a framework for a post-2014 NATO-Afghanistan
status of forces agreement.
As the United States transitions to Operation Resolute
Support, the committee expects the Administration to
communicate a clear understanding of the missions, authorities,
plans, and resources necessary to support Operation Resolute
Support. The committee has carefully reviewed the authorities
for which it recommends extension such as the Commanders'
Emergency Response Program and reimbursement of coalition
nations for support provided to U.S. military operations. The
committee would require a revised ``Report on Progress Toward
Security and Stability in Afghanistan Under Operation Resolute
Support'' to inform its understanding of the post-2014 security
and economic environment in Afghanistan, and a plan for
sustaining the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) through
fiscal year 2018. Additionally, the committee continues to
leverage important oversight tools, such as the Department of
Defense Inspector General, to ensure Department of Defense
funds for Afghanistan are properly managed to protect against
waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee also recognizes the
service performed by many Afghans in support of U.S. military
efforts, and it would authorize additional special immigrant
visas for Afghans who were employed by or on behalf of the U.S.
Government in Afghanistan.
Second, the committee continues to support Department
efforts to carry out security force assistance and military-to-
military interactions throughout the world by providing
authorities for interactions that support U.S. national
security interests particularly with those nations that have
chosen to partner with the United States to combat terrorism.
The committee would extend the Global Security Contingency Fund
(GSCF), and provide an authority that would allow for foreign
liaison officers to be temporarily assigned to the headquarters
of a combatant command, component command, or subordinate
operational command.
The committee also would provide an authority to the
Department of Defense relating to the acquisition of products
and services produced in Djibouti in recognition of the
Government of Djibouti's continued support of the U.S. base at
Camp Lemonnier, which is critical to U.S. national security
efforts in the region. However, the committee also believes
that the U.S. Government must improve its whole-of-government
engagement of strategic partners such as Djibouti.
Third, the committee would take several steps in this Act
aimed at bolstering U.S., allied, and partner capabilities to
deter aggression. The committee condemns the recent aggressive
actions undertaken by the Government of the Russian Federation
in Ukraine, which include its illegal occupation of Crimea,
deployment of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers near the
Ukrainian border, and its infiltration and destabilization of
eastern Ukraine. The committee therefore would limit U.S.-
Russia military contact and cooperation and limit the use of
funds for Department of Defense and National Nuclear Security
Administration activities with Russia. The NATO alliance
remains a cornerstone of international security, and the
committee would seek to further strengthen the alliance and
reassure U.S. allies and partners in Europe through measures
such as requiring a comprehensive strategic framework for
security force assistance to European and Eurasian forces and
providing additional funds for the Warsaw Initiative Fund/
Partnership for Peace program.
The committee also remains concerned about the continued
nuclear and missile developments in the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea as well as the military developments in the
People's Republic of China, including its provocative maritime
claims. The committee conducted an Asia-Pacific oversight
series, focusing largely on the implications of the
Administration's rebalance to Asia on U.S. defense policy,
posture, capabilities, and investments. Many of the Asia-
Pacific-related provisions contained in this Act reflect the
findings and recommendations that emerged from the oversight
series.
Fourth, the committee maintains strong oversight of
Department of Defense efforts to address emerging and evolving
threats to U.S. vital national security interests around the
world. The committee applauds the successes of the United
States military in its global pursuit of Al Qaeda. However, the
committee remains concerned that Al Qaeda and its violent
extremist affiliates and associated forces are evolving and
growing in certain geographic areas due to safe havens that
have emerged in locations such as Libya, the Syrian Arab
Republic, and the Republic of Iraq. The committee addresses
these issues by extending the authority to support special
operations to combat terrorism and by requiring the President
to provide a report on the national security planning guidance
to deny safe havens to Al Qaeda and its violent extremist
affiliates. Also, the committee recognizes the additional
requirements for U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) associated with
``New Normal'' and therefore would require a report on the
force posture and structure required of AFRICOM to meet the
``New Normal'' requirements in its area of responsibility.
The committee supports Department of Defense efforts to
prepare and posture itself for other threats. The committee
believes that the United States' should continue to maintain a
robust forward presence in the region of the Arabian Gulf to
support those allies and partners in order to deter the Islamic
Republic of Iran. The committee further believes that any
comprehensive deal on Iran's nuclear program should address
past and present issues of concern with the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and should require Iran to cease
enrichment of uranium, address ballistic missile and
conventional military systems, and stop support for
international terrorism. Additionally, the committee believes
that the United States should continue to put significant
pressure on Iran's network of organizations that conduct malign
activities in the Arabian Gulf region, and around the globe,
even while the United States engages in negotiations with Iran
relating to its nuclear program.
Lastly, the committee remains deeply concerned about the
implications of budget cuts and force reductions on the ability
of the United States to meet the global demand for forces
across the combatant commands. AFRICOM and U.S. Southern
Command, in particular, lack key enabler capabilities such as
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets. Although
U.S. Pacific Command has benefitted from the Administration's
rebalance to Asia, it is still anticipated to lack the full
time presence of a carrier. These shortfalls not only hamper
the combatant commanders' ability to meet their requirements,
but they also affect the United States' ability to provide
robust presence to deter potential adversaries and to reassure
allies and partners and, ultimately, affect perceptions of U.S.
commitment to these regions. While the committee has taken
several steps in this Act to address these concerns, it
recognizes that doing so will become increasingly difficult as
funding becomes increasing scarce.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Additional Reporting on the Transfer of International Traffic in Arms
Regulations Controlled Missile Defense Technology to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the
committee directed the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees, the Committee
on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the Senate, and the
Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the House of
Representatives, not later than August 1, 2013, that responds
to certain questions concerning reports of the illegal transfer
of Missile Defense Agency (MDA) developed technology.
The committee is troubled that the stated agencies have
thus far been unable to respond to those questions. Therefore,
the committee directs the Inspector General of the Department
of Defense to investigate whether MDA technology was
transferred to NASA other than by the Department's policies and
procedures for the protection of classified and International
Traffic in Arms (ITAR) controlled technology; whether
classified technology was involved; whether it was
retransferred beyond the control of the U.S. Government and, if
so, whether any damage to the security of the United States
resulted by that transfer; and who had access to that
technology, including foreign nationals. The Inspector General
is further directed to provide a preliminary report to the
House Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives not later
than November 31, 2014. In the event a final report is not
complete by November 31, 2014, the Inspector General should
brief the initial findings to the House Committee on Armed
Services and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of
the House of Representatives. The committee expects NASA to
provide unfettered access to MDA technology and related
documents, personnel, and any other matters requested by the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense. The Inspector
General should immediately report to the committees any non-
compliance or impairment with this direction.
In the event the Inspector General finds that such
transfer(s) did occur, the committee directs the Inspector
General to review the Department's compliance with its transfer
policy and procedures department-wide and to provide an interim
report to the House Committee on Armed Services on its plan to
undertake this review not later than November 1, 2015.
Aggression by the Russian Federation
The committee notes with concern the recent actions
undertaken by the Government of the Russian Federation in
Ukraine. The committee believes that both the overt and covert
actions taken by the Russian military and Government to seize
and annex Crimea, destabilize eastern Ukraine, and threaten
further military action against the Government of Ukraine, are
clearly meant to coerce the Government and people of Ukraine
into adopting policies and an orientation centered on Russia
and away from Europe and the West.
The committee supports the military steps taken by the
Administration to reassure North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) allies in Europe. The deployment of additional U.S.
troops to the territory of the easternmost NATO members, steps
taken to increase the air policing and airborne warning
missions, and the deployment of additional ships to the Black
Sea are all useful and necessary steps. The committee further
notes with approval the non-lethal military aid the
Administration has provided to Ukraine to date. However, in
both areas, the committee believes that more can be done and
will likely be required in the future.
The committee is concerned that Russia's actions in
Ukraine, coming only a few years after similar, albeit less
sophisticated, actions were taken against Georgia, represent
the Russian Government's policy for dealing with neighboring
states that do not follow its preferred orientation. Combined
with announced increases in Russian defense spending, such a
policy would be very concerning for Russia's neighbors,
including former Soviet states that are now members of NATO.
The committee encourages the Administration to consider
additional steps that could be taken to reassure allies and
dissuade Russia from further actions designed to coerce its
neighbors. The committee notes that cooperation between Russia
and the United States has benefited both countries in the past
and that Russian economic growth in the last two decades came
largely as a result of Russia's economic relationship with
Europe.
The committee also believes the Administration should
consider further sanctions that, coupled with an effective
information strategy, make clear to Russia's people that
prosperity and peace are the result of cooperation with
neighboring countries rather than threatening those neighbors.
The committee further encourages the Commander of U.S. European
Command (EUCOM) to consider additional exercises with European
and NATO allies to increase readiness and military
preparedness. Finally, the committee believes that the EUCOM
Commander and the full Administration should continue to
conduct engagement with and provide assistance to Ukraine. Such
assistance could include, but not be limited to, additional
non-lethal military assistance, cooperation on cyber defense,
and strategic information sharing.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends two
provisions in title 10, seven provisions in title 12, one
provision in title 13, and two provisions in title 31 that are
related to Russia, including expressing a sense of Congress on
Russian aggression, requiring the Secretary of Defense to
submit a plan to enhance the presence, capabilities, and
readiness posture of the U.S. military in Europe, and
establishing limitations on fiscal year 2015 funds for
cooperation and activities with the Russian Federation until
Congress has received certain certifications. Elsewhere in this
report, the committee also recommends $34.4 million, an
increase of $10.0 million above the budget request, for the
Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace.
Briefings on Arms Control Inspections and Potential Inconsistencies
Given ongoing concerns with the Russian Federation's
compliance with its arms control obligations to the United
States, the committee believes it is imperative that Congress
stay well-apprised of the results of arms control inspections
conducted by the United States in Russia. Therefore, the
committee directs the Director of the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency (DTRA) to provide, during fiscal year 2015 and the
remainder of fiscal year 2014, semi-annual briefings to the
House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on
Armed Services, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence on U.S. arms control inspections in
Russia and their results. The first such briefing should be
provided by June 30, 2014, and subsequent briefings should be
conducted semi-annually during fiscal year 2015.
The committee further directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy to provide a briefing to the House Armed
Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee by
July 31, 2014, on Department of Defense information regarding
U.S. arms control agreements with Russia and any potential
inconsistencies, circumventions, or violations regarding
Russia's compliance with such agreements.
Conflict in Syria
The committee remains concerned about the conflict in
Syria, which has now entered its fourth year. President Bashar
al-Assad has waged a ruthless campaign against the Syrian
people to include: flagrant human rights violations;
extrajudicial killings; use of conventional weapons and weapons
of mass destruction against civilians, including children; and
interference with the provision of medical aid and humanitarian
assistance.
The human toll in this conflict continues to rise
dramatically. To date, over 140,000 Syrians have been killed,
including at least 10,000 children, according to United
Nations' estimates. Additionally, the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) estimates that 9.3 million
Syrians are in need of humanitarian assistance, 6.5 million
Syrians are internally displaced, and 2.4 million Syrian
refugees are in neighboring countries.
The Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, in
testimony before the committee on February 11, 2014,
highlighted the growing regional instability in the vicinity of
Syria, stemming from the ever-increasing violence due to the
conflict in Syria and the refugee outflows that continue to
spill over Syria's borders into the Republic of Turkey, the
Lebanese Republic, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the
Republic of Iraq, and the State of Israel. The committee notes
the impact of the Syrian conflict on Jordan, in particular, and
will continue to consider ways in which it can support Jordan's
ability to maintain border security and stability, as the
committee did in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
The committee remains concerned about the effect of outside
influences in Syria. The Islamic Republic of Iran has sent into
Syria the Iranian Revolutionary Guard-Quds forces, Shia
militias from Iraq, Hezbollah, and other advisers to maintain
its client, the Assad regime, and in some cases, to actively
fight the Syrian opposition on behalf of the Assad regime. The
committee is further concerned by the growth of Al Qaeda-linked
or Al Qaeda-inspired elements in the Syrian civil war,
especially, although not exclusively, the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL) and the Al Nusra Front. Both of these
groups share ideologies with Al Qaeda and have attracted many
foreign fighters, increasing the chances that radicalized
adherents could return to the United States, Europe, or other
countries and conduct attacks.
The committee supports the attempt to remove Assad's
chemical weapons, but is disappointed by the continual delays
and missed deadlines by the Assad regime to transfer the
precursor chemicals. Such delays and missed deadlines sow doubt
that the destruction of Assad's chemical precursors and
chemical weapons-making capability will be achieved, consistent
with the deal that was reached. The committee notes that this
deal does not address the biological weapons program that the
Assad regime continues to maintain.
The committee believes the United States must act to
protect the Nation's interests and those of U.S. allies and
partners in the region, and should leverage all tools of
national power to achieve such interests. The committee is
aware that the Department of Defense and the U.S. Central
Command continue to conduct prudent planning to support any
Presidential policy decision to address the conflict in Syria
or stability in the region. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense, and the Administration more broadly, to
continue to look at realistic options to support U.S. allies in
the region and to help further regional stability. The
committee also believes that the United States and U.S. allies
in Europe and the Middle East must do more in a cooperative and
coordinated manner to track and address the foreign fighter
threat. Finally, the committee reserves judgment on any plan to
train and equip select elements of the Syrian opposition until
it understands the details of such plan or proposed authority,
including how it fits into a broader strategy and policy.
However, the committee does believe that such an effort merits
prudent planning and consideration in order to understand how
it would help bring about an end to the Syrian civil war, the
civilian strife caused by the war, and the threat of
international terrorism posed by some of the participants in
that war.
Department of Defense Arctic Collaboration with International Partners
The committee notes that the Department of Defense plays a
role in the U.S. National Strategy for the Arctic Region. The
Department of Defense November 2013 Arctic Strategy states the
Department's desired end-state for the Arctic is ``a secure and
stable region where U.S. national interests are safeguarded . .
. and nations work cooperatively to address challenges.'' The
strategy also states that ``relationships with allies and
partners are important enablers of cooperation in meeting
security and defense commitments,'' and that these
relationships ``play an important role in conflict prevention,
and if prevention and deterrence fail, in coordinating an
international response to security and defense challenges.''
The committee recognizes the Department's Arctic strategy
places a significant focus on collaboration with partners in
the region, including the pursuit of increased multilateral
collaboration with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
allies and partners, to leverage the most appropriate
capabilities to meet the Department's desired end-state. The
committee encourages the Department to continue fostering this
collaboration with international partners, including NATO, and
to keep the committee informed of its efforts.
Foreign Military Sales of U.S. Air and Missile Defense Systems and
Interoperability With Friendly and Allied States
The committee believes that international cooperation in
air and missile defense will continue to grow as the threat
grows in sophistication and numbers, and as defense budgets for
the U.S. and friendly and allied states continue to decline.
Further, the committee believes that through interoperability,
the United States and its allies can realize the benefits of
force multiplication and economies of scale.
Conversely, the committee is concerned that the Department
of Defense, the Department of State, and related U.S.
Government agencies are not appropriately postured to fully
promote the benefits of interoperable air and missile defense
capabilities between the United States and friendly and allied
countries. The committee is aware that, in many cases, policies
related to data sharing and protection of sensitive and
classified information are unclear. The committee is aware of
examples where undeveloped policies and incomplete processes
related to coproduction have stymied foreign military sales of
these capabilities. Likewise, the committee has seen examples
in which foreign states better position their indigenous
capabilities in tenders and competitions, when superior U.S.
capabilities have been offered but lack the clear support of
the U.S. Government, across the Federal Government.
The committee believes that the multiplicity of agencies
involved in these matters (specifically the Department of
Defense (including the Defense Security Cooperation Agency; the
Defense Technology Security Administration; the Missile Defense
Agency; the military services; the Tri-Service Committee; the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and others), the
Department of State, the Department of Commerce, and others)
does not provide the focus and efficiency required to fully
take advantage of the opportunities available to the United
States by the interest of friendly and allied states in U.S.
air and missile defense technology.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy to evaluate and provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2014, on the
current structure for foreign military sales of air and missile
defense technology to friendly and allied states, associated
obstacles or barriers, and recommend steps to improve the
structure to make it more nimble, responsive, and to better
position U.S. military technology in foreign tenders and
competitions.
The committee further directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the geographic combatant
commanders and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to
conduct an analysis and provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by January 1, 2015, on the
potential, in specific examples and recommendations, for
foreign military sales of U.S. air and missile defenses to
friendly and allied states to enhance interoperability and data
sharing to better share the operational burden of defending
against regional missile threats.
Lastly, the committee directs the Director, Defense
Security Cooperation Agency to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by November 15, 2014, on the intent
of the United States, through the Department of Defense, to
sell defense articles, equipment, and services related to U.S.
air and missile defense technology under consideration and the
potential for economies of scale.
Global Security Contingency Fund
The budget request contained $30.0 million for the Global
Security Contingency Fund (GSCF).
The GSCF was established as a joint authority for both the
Department of Defense and the Department of State in section
1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012 (Public Law 112-81). Section 1207(g) of Public Law 112-81
further required both departments to fund GSCF activities, by
specifically requiring that the Secretary of State contribute
not less than 20 percent of the total amount required for an
activity, and the Secretary of Defense contribute not more than
80 percent.
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 budget
request contained the Department of Defense request for $30.0
million for GSCF, but contained no funds requested by the
Department of State. The committee remains concerned about the
disproportionate contribution of the Department of Defense to
the GSCF. The committee notes section 1207(f) of Public Law
112-81 provides transfer authority for the Department of
Defense for up to $200.0 million and encourages the Department
of Defense to use the transfer authority in order to fund
future proposed programs.
Therefore, the committee recommends no funds, a decrease of
$30.0 million, for the GSCF. Elsewhere in this Act, the
committee includes a provision that would extend the GSCF for 1
year and broaden the types of authorized assistance to include
small-scale construction, and informs the Department that it
may consider not renewing the GSCF authority after it expires
at the end of fiscal year 2016.
Missile Defense Cooperation With Japan
The committee continues to support the significant level of
missile defense cooperation with the Government of Japan.
Included in this cooperation is the co-development of the
Standard Missile 3 block IIA missile interceptor. Japan is one
of only a handful of countries with the requisite technical
expertise and with whom the United States has the level of
trust required to partner on the development of significant
military technology such as a missile interceptor.
The committee is also profoundly appreciative of the
continuing activity to deploy a second Army Navy/Transportable
Radar Surveillance-model 2 radar unit in Japan. When the radar
is available later this year, it will make a significant
difference to regional missile defense and the homeland missile
defense of the United States. The committee is aware that these
two deployments bind together the security of the United States
and Japan, and do not come without additional risks to Japanese
security. The committee believes this is a measure of the
security alliance between the two nations.
The committee commends the announcement of the Secretary of
Defense on April 6, 2014, to forward deploy to Japan an
additional two United States Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile
Defense ships by 2017. The committee supports this decision, as
well as Japan's decision to obtain two more Aegis ballistic
missile defense ships for its own defense forces.
The committee believes this cooperation is the bedrock of
regional security and will support additional missile defense
cooperation in the years ahead.
Missile Defense Cooperation With the Republic of Korea
The committee is aware that the Republic of Korea has three
naval cruisers equipped with Aegis tracking software possessing
some ballistic missile defense sensor capability and plans to
increase the number of equipped warships by three. The
committee is also aware that South Korea has not currently
obtained sea-based ballistic missile interceptors. The
committee is aware of discussions between the U.S. and South
Korea to facilitate the first exports of this technology in the
near future and is supportive of these discussions.
The committee is also aware that South Korea is interested
in obtaining the Standard Missile 6 interceptor, and that it is
considering the Standard Missile 3 missile interceptor as well.
The committee believes these could be valuable to South Korea's
security and could further deepen bilateral defense cooperation
between the two nations.
The committee is also aware that South Korea has announced
plans to implement a Korean Air and Missile Defense system to
counter regional threats. The committee believes regional
security and bilateral ties would be strengthened if South
Korea obtained U.S. technology for this system, which would
enable fully interoperable capabilities in the event of a
threat to either country. The committee would be concerned that
other technology sold by other countries may not possess this
highly desirable force multiplication for South Korea's
security and nor would strengthen the 1953 Mutual Defense
Treaty.
The committee continues to support South Korea's
procurement of the Guided Enhanced Missile-Tactical interceptor
and its evaluation of the PATRIOT Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3)
and the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptor.
Monitoring of Ongoing Construction Activities in Afghanistan
The committee is aware that there may be limitations in the
ability of U.S. forces to access all parts of the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan to monitor ongoing Department of
Defense construction activities after December 31, 2014.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives, not later than December 15, 2014, on
plans to monitor such activities after December 31, 2014.
National Guard State Partnership Program
The committee reiterates its support for the National Guard
State Partnership Program (SPP), which has focused on improving
long-term international stability through unique cooperative
partnerships between 53 U.S. states and territories and 74
foreign partner countries. SPP activities support partner
capacity building in a wide-range of areas including
humanitarian assistance, emergency management, consequence
management, emergency communications, disaster relief, counter-
trafficking, and counter-proliferation.
The committees notes that section 1205 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66), which authorized the SPP, required an annual report on SPP
activities. In this annual report, the first of which is due by
January 31, 2015, the National Guard is required to include a
summary of expenditures to conduct SPP activities, including
annual costs and a breakdown of such expenditures by geographic
combatant command. The committee continues to encourage the
National Guard to provide greater transparency and detail on
the costs to plan, execute, and administer the SPP.
National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking
The committee is aware that the Administration has
announced a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife
Trafficking, which established guiding principles for U.S.
efforts to stem illegal trade in wildlife, including
strengthening domestic and global enforcement; reducing demand
for illegally traded wildlife at home and abroad; and
strengthening partnerships with international partners, local
communities, non-governmental organizations, private industry,
and others to combat illegal wildlife poaching and trade. The
committee believes that the Department of Defense should
support this national strategy to the extent that it is in the
U.S. national defense interest.
Non-Lethal Weapons for Contingency Operations
The committee reaffirms its longstanding support for the
accelerated development, fielding, and deployment of non-lethal
technologies. Non-lethal systems are useful for both force
application and force protection missions. The committee notes
that their employment is consistent with U.S. military strategy
and helps minimize damage to property and inadvertent civilian
casualties in the kinds of operational contingencies, including
irregular warfare and humanitarian crises, in which U.S. forces
are likely to be engaged. Their use provides commanders with
additional decision time and space before resorting to lethal
force, helps mitigate the negative consequences of unintended
non-combatant injuries and fatalities, and enhances the overall
prospects of mission success.
The committee understands that, as a result of budget
pressures, the Department of Defense is proposing significant
cuts to the Department's Non-Lethal Weapons program over the
next 5 years. This includes a roughly one-third reduction in
fiscal year 2015 for overall Department of Defense non-lethal
investments and more than a 40 percent reduction in the Future
Years Defense Plan compared to the previous 5-year estimate.
The committee is also concerned that significant cuts to
service procurements are also planned, further exacerbating
cuts to the joint program.
The committee believes that such reductions may have
unintended or unforeseen impacts on contingency planning
related to humanitarian relief, non-combatant evacuation
operations, and peacekeeping. If current contingency plans are
predicated on the availability of such non-lethal systems, the
Department of Defense may be forced into relying solely on
lethal force to deal with these emerging requirements.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by February 1, 2015, on the impact of funding
reductions for non-lethal systems on current contingency
operations planning supporting humanitarian relief, non-
combatant evacuation operations, and peacekeeping. This
briefing should examine current contingency planning to
determine if the level of investment estimated across the
Future Years Defense Program in the joint and service programs
is sufficient to support those plans, and a possible course of
action to mitigate any shortfall.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization 2014 Summit
The committee notes that the September 2014 North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit in Wales, the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represents an important
opportunity for the United States and alliance members to
discuss the future of the alliance. Historically, NATO has
served as the cornerstone of U.S. cooperation with European
allies and partners. As U.S. security interests remain parallel
with those of European partners, the committee believes the
United States should continue to consider NATO as the security
and defense foundation of the transatlantic relationship.
The committee believes that the Wales Summit presents an
opportunity for the United States to reaffirm its commitment to
the alliance in the midst of an environment of complex global
challenges and threats, and that the United States must play a
leadership role both in the alliance and at the Summit. The
committee also notes the United Kingdom's key role in hosting
and leading the Summit.
Additionally, the committee is aware that the Wales Summit
agenda has not yet been determined, but believes key areas of
discussion for the alliance could include: the evolving
security situation between the Russian Federation and Ukraine,
and the implications for NATO; the defense and security threats
facing alliance members, including potential aggression by
Russia towards NATO allies; maintaining key defense
capabilities and capacities across the alliance; NATO's
Operation Resolute Support mission in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan beyond December 2014; and maintaining
interoperability and combat gains from the International
Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan.
Lastly, the committee encourages continued engagement by
the Department of Defense as the Summit approaches, as well as
after the Summit.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Center of Excellence on Deterrence
The committee is aware that the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) has successfully built a construct of
centers of excellence in member states to strengthen the
Alliance's posture by training and educating leaders from NATO
member and partner states, develop important doctrines, improve
interoperability, identify lessons learned, and test and
validate important concepts for alliance security.
The committee is aware of over 18 of these centers (with
three more in development) concentrating on subjects ranging
from human intelligence to cooperative cyber defense. The
committee is also aware that there is no center devoted to
nuclear deterrence, including extended deterrence and
assurance, or to reducing the risk of nuclear smuggling and
nuclear terrorism.
The committee is aware of the robust nuclear weapons
modernization program in a state neighboring the alliance, the
on-going security crisis in Europe, including concerns about
the use of nuclear weapons in escalation control in certain
circumstances, invasion of states considered for Alliance
membership, arms control violations that could affect the
security of Alliance members, and the instances of nuclear
smuggling and risk of fissile material theft or diversion in or
near-Europe.
Moreover, the committee is aware that it is a central tenet
of the May 2012 NATO Deterrence and Defense Posture Review
that, ``[n]uclear weapons are a core component of NATO's
overall capabilities for deterrence and defense alongside
conventional and missile defense forces . . . As long as
nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to study the utility for NATO of a center of excellence
focusing primarily on nuclear deterrence (including extended
deterrence and ensuring compliance with arms control
obligations), missile defense, and reducing the risk of nuclear
smuggling and nuclear terrorism and submit a report to the
congressional defense committees not later than November 1,
2014. The study should include: a detailed examination of
establishing a NATO Center of Excellence-Deterrence (COE-D),
which would include a discussion of the notional concept with
key allies and potential stakeholders (Allied Command
Transformation, NATO Headquarters, Supreme Headquarters Allied
Powers Europe, U.S. Strategic Command, U.S. European Command);
development of a notional vision and mission statement, goals
and objectives, and organizational chart; propose a timeline
for establishment, initial operating capability, final
operating capability (accreditation), and provide proposed
budget and staffing; development of a notional curriculum;
recommendations for physical location and necessary
infrastructure; the manner in which the center would meet NATO
(Allied Command Transformation) accreditation requirements;
and, additional recommendations as appropriate based on the
outcome of the study. The committee believes, in discussion
with Allies, the study should identify and encourage member
states to offer to be the host nation for the COE-D and
equitably share the costs of establishing and operating such a
center.
Oversight of United States-Russian Federation Missile Defense
Cooperation Discussions
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the
committee directed the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of
State, and the Director, Missile Defense Agency to brief
certain congressional committees on (1) missile defense
discussions between the United States and the Russian
Federation; (2) the use of missile defense declassification
authority by Director, Missile Defense Agency; and (3) the
declassification of certain missile defense information.
The committee directs that this information provided to the
congressional committees pursuant to H. Rpt. 113-102 be updated
by the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director,
Missile Defense Agency and the Secretary of State, and be
reported to the congressional defense committees, the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives not later than
August 1, 2014.
Additionally, at the March 25, 2014, House Committee on
Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on the
President's fiscal year 2015 budget request for missile
defense, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear
and Missile Defense Policy stated, ``[w]ith regard to talks
with Russia on transparency and cooperation, Russia's
intervention in Ukraine in violation of international law led
to the suspension of our military-to-military dialogues,
including [Department of Defense] civilians, and we have
subsequently not continued to engage Russia on the topic of
missile defense.''
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to notify
the House Committee on Armed Services not later than one week
after the Department of Defense resumes any missile defense
discussion with the Russian Federation.
Report on Countering Violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces Treaty
On March 5, 2014, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy testified before the
Senate Committee on Armed Services that, ``[w]e are concerned
about Russian activity that appears to be inconsistent with the
Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. We've raised the
issue with Russia. They provided an answer that was not
satisfactory to us, and we will, we told them that the issue is
not closed, and we will continue to raise this.'' The committee
shares this concern regarding Russian behavior that is
``inconsistent with'' or in violation or circumvention of the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
Additionally, the Commander, U.S. European Command, and
Supreme Allied Commander Europe, stated on April 2, 2014, that,
``A weapon capability that violates the INF, that is introduced
into the greater European land mass is absolutely a tool that
will have to be dealt with. . .I would not judge how the
alliance will choose to react, but I would say they will have
to consider what to do about it. . .It can't go unanswered.''
The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, in consultation with the Commander, U.S. European
Command, the Commander, U.S. Central Command, and the
Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives not later than September 1,
2014, detailing the following:
(1) A list of any military capabilities (beyond those
indicated by the September 2013 report by the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, ``Report on Conventional Prompt Global
Strike Options if Exempt from the Restrictions of the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Between the United
States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics'') the United States would develop or deploy to
satisfy military requirements but for United States compliance
with and adherence to the INF Treaty;
(2) The capability of the Aegis Ashore systems scheduled to
be deployed to Romania and the Republic of Poland to detect
Russian military systems that are inconsistent with or in
circumvention of the INF treaty, and the appropriate types of
interceptor missiles, including interceptor missiles other than
the Standard Missile-3, that would be capable of defending
allies and U.S. deployed forces from such Russian military
systems that could be deployed at such Aegis Ashore sites, as
well as a detailed explanation of any hardware and software
changes required to those sites in order to provide a cruise-
missile defense capability, and the costs of those changes;
(3) The defensive capability of the Aegis Ashore system,
currently situated on the Pacific Missile Range Facility in
Hawaii, if redeployed to one of the following locations: Japan,
the Baltic Region of Europe, or the South Caucuses of Europe;
(4) Options to increase the long-term, long-duration
deployment of U.S. Aegis destroyers and cruisers, configured
with the Aegis ballistic missile defense system, in the North
Sea, Black Sea, Baltic Sea, White Sea, and other locations that
provide an enhanced defense of the United States, deployed
forces, and allies within range of the aforementioned Russian
military systems, and costs of those options;
(5) Options to provide for the forward-deployment, on a
non-temporary basis, for U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense or PATRIOT units at potential locations in Eastern
Europe, the South Caucuses of Europe, or in allied states in
East Asia, and the costs of those options;
(6) Options to increase the deployment of U.S. Dual Capable
Aircraft in states within range of the aforementioned Russian
military systems, and the costs of those options;
(7) Potential locations in Eastern Europe or the South
Caucuses of Europe, or in allied states in East Asia, for U.S.
Weapons Storage and Security System weapons vaults that would
reduce response time and increase proximity to potential
threats, and the costs of constructing the vaults at those
sites; and
(8) The potential sensor coverage of potential threats to
allies and U.S. deployed forces if the United States deployed
the Ground-based Radar Prototype presently located on Kwajalein
Atoll at optimal locations in the Baltic States, the South
Caucuses, Eastern Europe, or in allied states in East Asia, as
well as the potential sensor coverage of additional forward-
deployed Army-Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance units at
those locations, and the costs of deploying such sensors.
(9) Assessment of likely responses by the Russian
Federation to such options, if implemented, and the interest of
NATO states in hosting the capabilities described in (2)-(8)
and an assessment of the Alliance's likely position on the
deployment of such options, as required.
The report shall be submitted un unclassified form, with a
classified portion marked annex as necessary.
Report on Financial Management Capacity of Afghan Ministry of Defense
and Ministry of Interior
In November 2013, the Special Inspector General for
Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) issued a report titled,
``Comprehensive Risk Assessments of MOD and MOI Financial
Management Capacity Could Improve Oversight of Over $4 Billion
in Direct Assistance Funding'' (SIGAR-14-12-SP). The report
evaluated whether Department of Defense funds provided to the
Ministry of Defense (MOD) and the Ministry of Interior (MOI) of
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan are properly managed and
safeguarded to protect against fraud, waste, and abuse. The
Department of Defense reported to SIGAR that, as of September
2013, it committed $4.2 billion and disbursed nearly $3.0
billion in direct assistance to the Afghan MOD and MOI for the
sustainment of the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF),
including procurement of food, goods, and services; funding
salaries; and funding minor construction.
The committee believes that an assessment of the financial
management capacity of the Afghan MOD and MOI will improve the
protection of U.S. direct assistance to Afghanistan to fund and
equip the ANSF and ensure the assistance is used as intended.
The committee also believes that an assessment of any
associated risks for U.S. funds will assist the Department of
Defense in developing mitigation measures to address any such
risks.
Therefore, the committee directs the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense to conduct a comprehensive assessment
of the financial management capacity and risks within the
Afghan MOD and the MOI. The Inspector General should also
assess the capacity and risks within the Afghan Ministry of
Finance, to the extent the Inspector General determines that
such an assessment is required to protect Department funds and
would not duplicate efforts conducted by other agencies of the
U.S. Government. Such assessment should:
(1) Identify core financial management functions within the
Afghan MOD and MOI, including: financial management and
accounting capacity; financial accountability and control
environment; procurement and asset management capacity;
contracting mechanisms and processes; and management of
personnel systems;
(2) Identify major risks and mitigation strategies deemed
necessary for ensuring that the MOD and MOI are able to manage
U.S. direct assistance; and
(3) Assess how a post-2014 United States and North Atlantic
Treaty Organization residual military presence to train,
advise, and assist the ANSF would help mitigate any risk in the
financial management capacity of the Afghan MOD and MOI.
The committee further directs the Inspector General to
provide a report on the results of the assessment to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by December 31, 2014.
The committee is cognizant of the security situation in
Afghanistan and of other challenges that may affect the
Inspector General's ability to carry out such an assessment.
The committee understands that the Inspector General would
conduct the assessment in phases to accommodate these
challenges. If the Inspector General cannot complete the
assessment and deliver the required report by December 31,
2014, the Inspector General should notify the committees of the
reasons the assessment cannot be completed by that date and
include in such notification the date the Inspector General
expects that the assessment will be completed and submitted.
Report on Foreign Ballistic Missile Defense Programs
The committee notes the long-term utility of the annual
reports on military power of states including the People's
Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Drawing on
these examples, as an initial step, the committee is interested
in better understanding the consequences of the increasing
reliance on missile defenses by states around the globe.
For example, the committee was informed by the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his response to its direction in
the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 that:
``Russia's objective with its ballistic missile defense (BMD)
capabilities is to ensure defense of critical political and
military targets in the Moscow area from a ballistic missile
attack, either by the United States or any other nation with
nuclear or conventional ballistic or cruise missile
capabilities. China desires a BMD capability to protect its
mainland and strategic forces. At present, China's existing
long-range surface to air missile inventory offers a limited
capability against short-range ballistic missiles. China is
proceeding with research and development toward a missile
defense umbrella consisting of intercept at exo-atmospheric
altitudes (>80km), as well as intercepts of ballistic missiles
and other aerospace vehicles within the upper atmosphere.''
The committee is also aware that the Republic of India is
undertaking tests of its anti-ballistic missile defense system
as part of its efforts to develop and deploy a ballistic
missile defense shield. The committee is further aware of
extensive U.S. missile defense cooperation involving the State
of Israel, the Republic of Korea, Japan, the United Arab
Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and many
others.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Defense
Intelligence Agency, in cooperation with the Director, Missile
and Space Intelligence Center and the Director, National Air
and Space Intelligence Center, to provide an unclassified
report to the congressional defense committees, the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives not later than
November 15, 2014, that includes the following:
(1) A detailed description of ballistic missile defense
programs of each state that possesses such a program, including
role and capability of outer space in their system
architecture, either through indigenous development or
procurement from another state;
(2) The missile defense employment policy of that country,
including any views on the reason such state has its missile
defense system and any limitations on its use as a defense
system, as well as any technical or doctrinal indications that
a state's ballistic missile defense programs are intended to
defend that state from U.S. ballistic missiles;
(3) Intent to, and established programs to, modernize such
systems and relative budget as compared to national defense
budget; and (4) Indication that a state will abandon its
ballistic missile defense program if the U.S. provides that
state guarantees of any sort that U.S. ballistic missile
defense programs are unrelated to that state's offensive
forces.
Report on Operational Contract Support in U.S. Africa Command
While much attention has been paid to the use of
contractors by the Department of Defense to support the large-
scale operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, the committee recognizes the
Department uses contractors to support myriad efforts in other
locations around the globe. Specifically, within U.S. Africa
Command (AFRICOM), the Department relies heavily on contractors
to provide logistical, linguistic, intelligence, and
transportation support to ongoing training, advising, and other
assistance missions. While the challenges and deficiencies
regarding the planning, management, and oversight of
contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan have been well documented,
and the Department has taken several steps to address these
challenges, the committee notes that the challenges associated
with contractor support for other types of operations in other
regions could be substantially different. In addition to
broader concerns regarding planning, management, and oversight
of contracts of this nature, the committee is concerned about
the extent to which the Department may face operational
contract support challenges in AFRICOM.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to examine the processes AFRICOM uses to
plan, manage, and oversee contractors that support its military
operations conducted in Africa. Specifically, the review should
include an assessment of the following:
(1) The extent to which AFRICOM uses contractors to support
its programs and operations and the appropriateness of how
AFRICOM uses contractors to support such programs and
operations;
(2) The extent to which AFRICOM depends on the Department
of State to provide operational contract support to its
activities in Africa and the potential challenges associated
with this support;
(3) The organizational structure in place at AFRICOM and
its subordinate commands to manage operational contract
support, including planning for the use of contractors and
oversight of contractors during operations, as well as the
systems and processes for tracking contractors throughout
operations;
(4) The processes used to vet non-United States contractors
and contractor employees; and
(5) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines
appropriate with respect to the Department of Defense's
operational contract support in AFRICOM.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by
March 1, 2015, on the above assessment, with a follow-on report
delivered to those committees not later than April 15, 2015.
Report on the Proliferation Activities of Karl Lee and the Support of
the Chinese Government
The committee is aware that the United States has
repeatedly invoked sanctions on Karl Lee, a national of the
People's Republic of China, for his proliferation to the
Islamic Republic of Iran of components related to its illegal
ballistic missile program in violation of United States
statutes (for example, the Iran, North Korea, and Syria
Nonproliferation Act) and numerous Executive orders.
The committee is also aware that despite a criminal
indictment in the United States for these activities, and
numerous and repeated invocations of United States sanctions
against him, China has made little apparent effort to respond
to Karl Lee's activities. The committee believes it would be a
benefit to the bilateral relationship between the two nations
if China took efforts to arrest Karl Lee to stop permanently
his illegal proliferation.
The committee directs the Director, Defense Intelligence
Agency to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate,
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives, not later than August 31, 2014, providing the
following: ongoing proliferation activities involving Karl Lee
or his front companies, and relationships between Karl Lee and
officials of the Chinese government, including bribes or
protection payments to ensure that his activities go
unchallenged by the government. The report should be in
unclassified form, with a classified annex if necessary.
Report on U.S. Army Regionally Aligned Brigade in Africa
In 2013, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) became the first
geographic combatant command to receive a regionally aligned
force (RAF). Under the regionally aligned force concept, the
Army will align designated units to specific regions and deploy
small groups of personnel from those units to conduct security
force assistance activities, leaving the rest of the units at
their home stations. These activities include exercises,
training events, and other security cooperation and security
force assistance activities. The RAF units are expected to
maintain readiness for their core mission even as they support
the geographic combatant commander's needs. The Army has
designated one brigade to serve as the regionally aligned force
for AFRICOM.
The committee is concerned about potential overlaps in
roles and responsibilities, and notes that there are other
Department of Defense security force assistance activities
underway in Africa, including Africa Contingency Operations
Training and Assistance efforts and the National Guard's State
Partnership Program. Furthermore, the committee is concerned
that these additional mission requirements and the dispersion
of the RAF may impact the ability of the force to maintain
readiness for its core mission. Elsewhere in this report, the
committee expresses support for the Army's RAF concept but also
states various concerns. In addition, elsewhere in this Act,
the committee includes a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to submit an assessment of the RAF to the
congressional defense committees concurrent with the submission
of the President's budget for fiscal year 2016.
As a complement to this assessment, the committee directs
the Comptroller General of the United States to evaluate the
employment of the RAF in Africa. The Comptroller General's
evaluation should be informed by the required Army assessment
and include the following:
(1) The extent to which AFRICOM has defined the intended
roles, responsibilities, goals, objectives, and required
capabilities for the use of the regionally aligned brigade to
conduct security force assistance activities, to include
evaluating the impact of conducted activities;
(2) The extent to which AFRICOM has identified and
mitigated potential overlap between the requirements and
capabilities of the regionally aligned brigade and other
Department of Defense security force assistance activities
within AFRICOM;
(3) The extent to which the regionally aligned brigade has
been able to meet AFRICOM requirements to conduct security
force assistance activities, to include the training and
equipping of brigade personnel and associated costs to meet
mission requirements;
(4) What impact, if any, the regionally aligned brigade's
security force assistance activities and requirements in
AFRICOM have had on its ability to maintain readiness, to
include adhering to training schedules; and
(5) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines
appropriate with respect to the Army's regionally aligned
brigade in Africa.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
preliminary briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives by March 1, 2015, on
the above evaluation, with a report to follow not later than
April 15, 2015.
Report on U.S. Government Comprehensive Approach to Strengthen its
Strategic Partnership with Djibouti
The committee believes that the strategic relationship
between the U.S. Government and the Government of the Republic
of Djibouti remains one of the most important strategic
relationships that the United States has in the region. In
written testimony submitted to the committee on March 5, 2014,
the Commander, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) stated that the
Department of Defense's presence at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti,
``provides a critical platform for our activities, as well as
those of Central Command, Special Operations Command, and
Transportation Command.'' The committee further notes the
importance of the Department's presence in Djibouti in the
classified annex to this report.
The committee appreciates the Government of Djibouti's
continued support of this relationship and therefore, elsewhere
in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would
provide an enhanced authority to the Secretary of Defense to
acquire products and services produced in Djibouti in support
of Department of Defense activities in AFRICOM.
However, the committee believes that a comprehensive, long-
term, interagency approach is necessary to support the
strategic relationship between the two countries, and to
support ongoing Department of Defense efforts facilitated by
that relationship. The committee is aware that the Department
of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development are
engaged in Djibouti, but believes that these efforts could be
better coordinated within the interagency and should be robust
enough to support such a comprehensive approach.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, as well as the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives, not later than
February 6, 2015, on the specific steps the U.S. Government is
taking to strengthen its strategic relationship with Djibouti,
including:
(1) A summary of the strategic goals for the relationship
between the United States and the Government of Djibouti;
(2) An assessment of the current state of the relationship
between the United States and the Government of Djibouti; and
(3) A detailed description of the steps being taken, and
additional steps that could be taken, to support a long-term,
strategic relationship between the United States and the
Government of Djibouti.
Report on Updated Independent Cost Estimate of the European Phased
Adaptive Approach
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
provided the October 2012 Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation (CAPE) Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) for the
European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) on February 25, 2014.
The committee is aware of both the total acquisition and
lifecycle cost as well as the statement of the Under Secretary
of Acquisition, Technology and Logistics that there have been
numerous requirement content changes to the EPAA since it was
completed, including mission requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation to update his October 2012
ICE and submit it directly to the congressional defense
committees not later than November 15, 2014.
Republic of China Radar Interoperability
The committee is aware that the Republic of China (Taiwan)
possesses a large and highly capable Early Warning Radar. The
committee believes that, based on its geographical location,
this radar could be a benefit to United States and allied
missile defense objectives.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile
Defense Agency to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than October 1, 2014, detailing his views
on any benefits, and associated costs and security
requirements, of integrating such radar with other United
States missile defense and sensor systems to improve U.S.
regional missile defense capabilities. The committee directs
this report to be provided in unclassified form, with a
classified annex if necessary.
Separately, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy may
provide an additional report detailing his views on the
benefits and costs of such cooperation.
Transfers of Excess Defense Articles
The committee appreciates the important diplomatic
interests served by the transfer of Excess Defense Articles
(EDA) to allied and partner nations. While a properly executed
EDA program bolsters U.S. diplomatic aims, under section 2321j
of title 22, United States Code, the EDA program must be
executed in a way that does not harm the capability or capacity
of the U.S. defense industrial base, which is particularly
important during this time of fewer Federal investments in
defense procurement and research and development.
The committee is concerned about the adverse impact of
antiquated equipment transfers on partner nation capacity-
building objectives as well as the harm done to the reputation
of the U.S. industrial base from transferring non-functional or
obsolete equipment. In order to ensure that the diplomatic aims
of EDA are fully appreciated and efforts to enhance the
sustainment of the U.S defense industrial base with
international sales are not undermined, the committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense to engage the industrial
base in providing refurbishment and sustainment of EDA
equipment, to include supplies and parts, to the fullest extent
possible.
United States Security Assistance to the Government of Egypt
The committee notes with concern the growing Al Qaeda
presence and associated terrorist attacks in the Arab Republic
of Egypt. Presently, at least six terrorist groups with links
to Al Qaeda operate in Egypt, including the Ansar Bayt al-
Maqdis and the al-Furqan Brigades. In recent months, terrorist
attacks in Egypt claimed the lives of hundreds of Egyptians and
over 350 soldiers and police officers. Within the past 6
months, there have been over 280 attacks in the Sinai
Peninsula. On January 24, 2014, Al Qaeda-linked terrorists
conducted a series of coordinated attacks that killed 6 and
injured over 100 people in Cairo.
Egypt is not only enduring the effects of terrorism from
the Sinai Peninsula, it is also enduring the increasing flow of
foreign fighters and military material from its western and
southern borders with Libya and the Republic of the Sudan,
respectively.
The committee understands that the Secretary of State, in
accordance with section 7041 of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-71), will certify to Congress that
Egypt is taking steps to support a democratic transition and
that the President has made the decision to deliver 10 Apache
helicopters to support Egypt's counterterrorism operations in
the Sinai Peninsula. Given the significant increase in
terrorist activity, the close relationship that the Egyptian
military has with the U.S. military, and the interim
Government's support of the peace treaty with the State of
Israel, the committee supports the President's decision to
provide the Apache aircraft to the Government of Egypt. The
committee further believes that the United States should
provide necessary security assistance to the Government of
Egypt, specifically focused on areas of mutual security
interest.
The committee remains concerned that if the United States
does not engage through security assistance with the Government
of Egypt and the Egyptian military, then other countries, such
as the Russian Federation, may fill this gap, which would work
at cross-purposes with vital U.S. national security interests.
The committee continues to closely observe Egypt's
transition towards a new democratic government structure and is
encouraged by both the direction and progress that the interim
Government has made in this realm. In January 2014, Egyptians
participated in a referendum to approve a new constitution,
which includes protections for individual freedoms, equal
protection and rights for all Egyptians, government
transparency and accountability, and improved civilian
oversight of the Egyptian military. Additionally, the committee
is encouraged that the presidential and parliamentary elections
appear to be on track and likely to be completed by the summer
of 2014, and urges the Government of Egypt to ensure that the
elections are free, fair, and devoid of fraud. The committee is
concerned by reports that there may have been human rights
violations that have occurred in Egypt. The committee
encourages the next President of Egypt to address the economic
and political needs of the Egyptian people, including the
protections for individual freedom and human rights reflected
in the new Egyptian constitution.
United States Security Policy and Posture in the Middle East and North
Africa
The committee recognizes that the Middle East is undergoing
significant change, and remains concerned about the
implications of those changes on security and stability in the
region and on U.S. policy and posture in the region.
As the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern
Affairs testified to the committee on February 11, 2014, ``The
Middle East today is undergoing historic changes. Across the
region, we are seeing unprecedented political ferment and in
some cases upheaval as people demand change.'' Major events
such as the war in the Republic of Iraq, the Arab Awakening,
and the ongoing conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic, have
shaped, and are shaping, the Middle East in fundamental and
irreversible ways. Over the next 6 months, key diplomatic and
defense related events in the greater Middle East will further
shape the region and the U.S. engagement therein. These
include: the likely signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement
between the United States and the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan; the President's decision on a potential post-2014
U.S. residual presence in Afghanistan; the international effort
to destroy the chemical precursors and chemical weapons
production capability of the Assad regime; the continuing
conflict in Syria; the negotiations between the State of Israel
and the Palestinian National Authority; the negotiations to
achieve a comprehensive nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic
of Iran; and the parliamentary and presidential elections in
the Arab Republic of Egypt. However, the committee remains
unclear about how these diplomatic and military activities will
shape a comprehensive U.S. policy for the Middle East and North
Africa.
Officials from key allies and partners in the region, most
prominently from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the State of
Israel, and some Gulf States, have made public comments that
suggest they are concerned that the United States is
disengaging from the Middle East, or at least that U.S.
interests appear to be diverging from these allies' interests.
These public expressions of concern appear to be spurred by the
ongoing negotiations and interim nuclear deal with Iran,
disagreements with the United States about how best to respond
to the conflict in Syria, and the ongoing U.S. ``rebalance to
the Asia-Pacific'' that may lead to greater U.S. disengagement
from the Middle East.
The committee believes that the United States should be
clear in its commitment to the Middle East and North Africa,
and that the U.S. forward posture across these regions should
demonstrably support U.S. stated policy goals and strategy,
consistent with the ``deep, enduring interest'' and commitment
expressed in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The
committee also notes that the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs stated
before the committee on February 11, 2014, that ``the greater
Middle East remains a region of vital strategic importance to
the United States . . . The most tangible sign of U.S.
commitment that we can make to the security of the region is
the physical presence of the men and women in uniform as well
as the presence of advanced military equipment.''
The committee believes that a commitment to the regular
funding of U.S. strategic bases that support U.S. forces in the
Middle East is the most visible way the United States can
demonstrate its commitment to the region in the short term. The
committee further believes that the United States' forward
posture and presence is not sufficient to meet the goals of the
2014 QDR unless they are also fiscally sustainable. The
committee is aware that much of the critical U.S. military
posture and basing in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
region, which is used to deter Iran and would be leveraged in
the event there are any military operations to counter Iran in
the GCC region, continues to be expeditionary in nature and
financed through Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding.
The committee recognizes that OCO funding may be phased out in
the coming years, and therefore remains concerned that the
Department of Defense has not identified other sources of
funding to support these strategic bases and presence. In
addition, the committee notes that the United States does not
have in place the Status of Forces Agreements, and associated
defense agreements, with GCC countries to ensure that these
locations are maintained for the defense of the Arabian Gulf
and other U.S. national security interests. The committee has
previously highlighted the need for a sustainable posture and
relationship with the GCC countries, including language in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66) that required the Secretary of Defense to provide
the committee with a report addressing its concerns about U.S.
plans, funding, and agreements in the region.
The committee expects continued engagement from the
Department of Defense on U.S. policy and posture in the Middle
East and North Africa, and on any changes stemming from
budgetary constraints or policy shifts.
Updated Report on Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons Developments
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the
committee directed the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency to
``provide unclassified semi-annual reports, with a classified
annex if necessary, detailing the status of the development and
deployment by the Russian Federation of nuclear weapons and
associated delivery systems not subject to strategic arms
control treaties. Such reports shall include status of
deployment, numbers of deployed systems, expected employment
doctrine, and status of training in the employment of such
systems by the military forces of the Russian Federation.''
The committee has received one such report and found it to
be less responsive to its direction than it hoped. Therefore,
the committee directs the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency
to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than October 1, 2014, that includes the following:
(1) The status of the development and deployment by the
Russian Federation of nuclear weapons and associated delivery
systems not subject to strategic arms control treaties;
(2) The numbers of such deployed and non-deployed systems;
(3) The expected employment doctrine; and
(4) The status of training in the employment of such
systems by Russian military forces.
Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace
The budget request contained $24.4 million for the Warsaw
Initiative Fund (WIF)/Partnership for Peace (PFP) program,
representing a $9.7 million decrease from the fiscal year 2014
budget request.
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense's
Warsaw Initiative Fund program is one of the primary tools the
Department uses to promote defense reform efforts and defense
institution building with developing partners that are members
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Partnership for
Peace program. The committee believes that additional funds are
necessary to enable U.S. European Command, through military
exercises and defense reform efforts, to build the capacity of
PFP militaries in order to promote regional stability and deter
aggression by the Russian Federation.
Therefore, the committee recommends $34.4 million, an
increase of $10.0 million, for the WIF/PFP program.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training
Section 1201--One-Year Extension of Global Security Contingency Fund
This section would modify section 1207 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81). This section would broaden the Global Security Contingency
Fund (GSCF) authority to include small-scale construction, not
to exceed $750,000 on a per-project basis, as part of the
authorized types of capacity building. The committee believes
that small-scale construction, under $750,000 per project, may
be required for long-term sustainability of capacity building
activities. However, the committee expects that any small-scale
construction projects authorized under this section would be a
supporting, logical component of a comprehensive GSCF program,
and not a stand-alone project.
This section would also authorize a 1-year extension of the
GSCF and state that amounts appropriated or transferred to the
Fund before the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 shall remain available
for obligation and expenditure after September 30, 2015, only
if activities under programs under section 1207(b) begin before
September 30, 2015.
The committee remains concerned about the progress of the
GSCF, as previously stated in the committee report (H. Rept.
113-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014 and the committee report (H. Rept. 112-
479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013. The committee believes that if the Department
of Defense and the Department of State cannot successfully
establish full operational capability for the GSCF, including
planning, executing, and assessing GSCF activities, then it may
consider not renewing this authority in future years.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends no
dedicated funding for GSCF; rather, the committee believes
projects contemplated under GSCF should compete within other
security assistance priorities for funds otherwise available to
the Department as they have been.
Section 1202--Notice to Congress on Certain Assistance Under Authority
to Conduct Activities to Enhance the Capability of Foreign Countries to
Respond to Incidents Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction
This section would amend section 1204 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) by adding the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives to the notification requirement.
Section 1203--Enhanced Authority for Provision of Support to Foreign
Military Liaison Officers of Foreign Countries While Assigned to the
Department of Defense
This section would amend section 1051a of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide
administrative and support services, to include certain
training programs, for liaison officers of a foreign country,
while such liaison officers are assigned temporarily to the
headquarters of a combatant command, component command, or
subordinate operational command of the United States. This
section would further amend section 1051a of title 10, United
States Code, to include a limitation on the authorized number
of liaison officers and amount of unreimbursed support for
travel, subsistence, and medical care expenses per fiscal year
for any such liaison officer. This section would also require
the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees an annual report on January 31 of each year from
2016-18 on the summary of expenses incurred by the United
States for liaison officers of a developing country, and
include the Department of Defense's definition of a
``developing country'' as used for the purposes of this
authority.
The committee recognizes the role of foreign liaison
officers at the combatant commands and component commands to
provide expertise to the commander and staff to better
understand the respective region and plan for contingencies in
the command's area of responsibility. Although the committee
recognizes foreign liaison officers are present at all
commands, section 1051a of title 10, United States Code,
provides specific authority to the Secretary of Defense to
provide administrative and financial support to those liaison
officers of a developing country involved in a current U.S.
military operation. The committee believes the commands should
continue to benefit from the unique contributions of the
liaison officers beyond current military operations, such as
Operation Enduring Freedom.
Section 1204--Annual Report on Human Rights Vetting and Verification
Procedures of the Department of Defense
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit to Congress
an annual report on human rights vetting and verification
procedures of the Department of Defense. This report shall be
submitted at the same time as the budget of the President is
submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code.
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan
Section 1211--Extension of Commanders' Emergency Response Program in
Afghanistan
This section would amend section 1201 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), as most recently amended by section 1211 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66), by extending for 1 year the Commanders' Emergency Response
Program in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
Section 1212--Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of Certain
Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States Military
Operations
This section would amend section 1233 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), as most recently amended by section 1213 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66), by extending the authority for reimbursement of coalition
nations for support provided to the United States for military
operations through fiscal year 2015, and making certain
technical amendments.
Additionally, this section would prohibit the reimbursement
of support provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic
of Pakistan until such time as the Secretary of Defense
certifies to the congressional defense committees that Pakistan
is maintaining security and is not, through its actions or
inaction at any level of government, limiting or otherwise
restricting the movement of U.S. equipment and supplies along
the Ground Lines of Communication through Pakistan, and that
Pakistan is taking demonstrable steps to: (1) support
counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda, Tehrik-i-Taliban
Pakistan, and other militant groups such as the Haqqani Network
and the Quetta Shura Taliban; (2) disrupt the conduct of cross-
border attacks against U.S., coalition, and Afghan security
forces; (3) counter the threat of improvised explosive device
networks; and (4) conduct cross-border coordination and
communication with Afghan security forces and U.S. Armed
Forces.
Section 1213--Extension of Certain Authorities for Support of Foreign
Forces Supporting or Participating with the United States Armed Forces
This section would amend section 1234 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) and section 1202(e) of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), as
most recently amended by sections 1217(a) and 1217(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66), respectively. Specifically, it would extend the
authority to (1) provide supplies, services, transportation
(including airlift and sealift), and other logistical support
to coalition forces supporting United States military and
stabilization operations in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan; and (2) use acquisition and cross-servicing
agreements to lend military equipment to the military forces of
a nation participating in combined operations with the United
States in Afghanistan.
The committee recognizes that the United States may be
involved in a combined operation with partner nations in
Afghanistan as part of Operation Resolute Support, following
the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission in
Afghanistan on December 31, 2014. Should the President decide
to commit the United States to a post-2014 presence and mission
as part of Operation Resolute Support, such partner nations
would require logistical support and the lending of military
equipment from U.S. forces in Afghanistan to effectively
execute the Operation Resolute Support mission.
Section 1214--Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in
Afghanistan under Operation Resolute Support
This section would create a new ``Report on Progress Toward
Security and Stability in Afghanistan.'' It would include
reporting requirements similar to those originally contained in
section 1230 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as most recently amended
by section 1218 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), but updated to reflect
the post-2014 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) effort
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan known as Operation
Resolute Support.
In addition, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit
such report to the congressional defense committees, the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee
on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives not later
than April 1, 2015, and every 180 days thereafter, on the
progress toward security and stability in Afghanistan under
Operation Resolute Support.
Lastly, this section would extend the original ``Report on
Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan'' for 3
months and sunset it on December 31, 2014.
Section 1215--Requirement to Withhold Department of Defense Assistance
to Afghanistan in Amount Equivalent to 150 Percent of All Taxes
Assessed by Afghanistan to Extent Such Taxes Are Not Reimbursed by
Afghanistan
This section would require the Department of Defense to
withhold fiscal year 2015 funds appropriated for assistance to
the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in the
amount equivalent to 150 percent of the total taxes assessed
during fiscal year 2014 by Afghanistan on such assistance. This
withhold would continue to the extent that the Secretary of
Defense certifies that Afghanistan has not provided a
reimbursement for those taxes to the Department, or relevant
Department contractors and subcontractors. The Secretary of
Defense may waive such requirement if it is necessary to
achieve U.S. goals in Afghanistan.
Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report, not later than March 1, 2015, to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives, on the total taxes assessed during fiscal year
2014 by the Government of Afghanistan on any Department of
Defense assistance.
Lastly, this section would terminate once the Secretary of
Defense notifies the appropriate committees that the United
States and Afghanistan have signed a bilateral security
agreement and that such agreement has entered into force.
The committee notes that such taxation by Afghanistan on
Department of Defense assistance is a violation of the status
of forces agreement (SOFA) between the United States and
Afghanistan. The committee expects the Government of
Afghanistan to adhere to this SOFA and not levy illegitimate
taxes and penalties on Department of Defense contractors and
subcontractors providing services in Afghanistan.
Section 1216--United States Plan for Sustaining the Afghanistan
National Security Forces Through the End of Fiscal Year 2018
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit a report
within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act to
the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives, that contains a detailed plan
for sustaining the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF)
through the end of fiscal year 2018, consistent with plans that
are being considered by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
The objective of such plan is to ensure that the ANSF will be
able to independently and effectively conduct operations and
maintain security and stability in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan.
Section 1217--Sense of Congress on United States Military Commitment to
Operation Resolute Support in Afghanistan
This section would express the sense of Congress on the
United States military commitment to Operation Resolute Support
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to include: the
importance of maintaining a U.S. residual presence in
Afghanistan for Operation Resolute Support beginning on January
1, 2015; the importance of achieving a signed Bilateral
Security Agreement, and a status of forces agreement to support
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mission; and,
continuing to financially support the Afghanistan National
Security Forces (ANSF) due to the vital interests that the
United States continues to have in Afghanistan.
The committee applauds the gains achieved by the United
States, NATO, and its coalition partners in Afghanistan, to
include:
(1) The International Security and Assistance Force has
trained and is building the ANSF, including doubling the ANSF
in size between 2009-14, to its current end strength of
approximately 352,000 personnel;
(2) The ANSF currently executes 95 percent of its
conventional operations and 98 percent of its special
operations missions across Afghanistan;
(3) The United States signed a Strategic Partnership
Agreement with the Government of Afghanistan and has designated
Afghanistan as a major non-NATO ally;
(4) Life expectancy in Afghanistan has increased from 37
years of age in 2000 to 56 years of age in 2014;
(5) 65 percent of the Afghan population has access to the
Internet;
(6) There are four times more healthcare facilities in
Afghanistan in 2014 than in 2003;
(7) More than 10,000,000 children are attending school,
including 3,000,000 girls, in Afghanistan;
(8) There are more than 13,000 general education schools in
Afghanistan; and
(9) Paved roads have increased from just 32 miles in 2002
to 7,500 miles in 2014.
The committee notes that the term Operation Resolute
Support refers to the NATO mission in Afghanistan beginning on
January 1, 2015.
Section 1218--Extension of Afghan Special Immigrant Program
This section would authorize a certain number of visas for
principal aliens who may be provided special immigrant visa
status in accordance with section 602(b)(3) of the Afghan
Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101). This section
would also extend the period in which the principal alien must
be employed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to December 31, 2015.
Additionally, this section would extend the period in which the
principal alien must apply to the Chief of Mission in
Afghanistan to September 30, 2015. The authorization in this
section would terminate on September 30, 2016.
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation
Section 1221--Limitation on Military Contact and Cooperation between
the United States and the Russian Federation
This section would prohibit the use of funds for fiscal
year 2015 for bilateral military-to-military contact or
cooperation between the United States and the Russian
Federation until the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with
the Secretary of State, certifies to the appropriate
congressional committees that Russia is respecting the
sovereignty of Ukrainian territory, no longer acting
inconsistently with the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces
Treaty, in compliance with the Treaty on Conventional Armed
Forces in Europe, and Russia has not sold or transferred the
Club-K land attack cruise missile system to any foreign country
or person during fiscal year 2014. This section would include a
waiver for the Secretary of Defense, pending a notification, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to the appropriate
congressional committees that such contact or cooperation is in
the national security interest of the United States and a
period of 30 days has elapsed following the notification.
Further, the certification regarding the sale or transfer of
the Club-K cruise missile could be waived by the Secretary of
Defense if the United States has imposed sanctions against the
manufacturer of such system by reason of the sale or transfer,
or, if the Secretary has developed and submitted to the
appropriate congressional committees a plan to prevent the sale
or other transfer of such system in the future.
The committee notes that at the time this report was filed,
the Secretary of Defense has suspended military exercises,
bilateral meetings, port visits, and planning conferences
between the Armed Forces of the United States and Russia in
response to ongoing Russian aggression towards Ukraine. The
committee believes that U.S.-Russia military contact and
cooperation must remain suspended so long as Russia continues
its aggression towards Ukraine and continues to take actions
inconsistent with its treaty obligations.
Section 1222--Limitation on Use of Funds With Respect to Certification
of Certain Flights by the Russian Federation Under the Treaty on Open
Skies
This section would impose a limitation on the use of funds
to permit the certification of a proposal by the Russian
Federation to change any sensor package for a flight by Russia
under the Open Skies Treaty unless: (1) the Secretary of
Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the
Director of National Intelligence jointly certify to the
appropriate congressional committees that such proposal will
not enhance the capability or potential of the Russian
Federation to gather intelligence that poses an unacceptable
risk to the national security of the United States or is not
designed to be collected under such treaty; and (2) the
Secretary of State certifies to the appropriate congressional
committees that Russia is no longer illegally occupying
Ukrainian territory, the Russian Federation is no longer
violating the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and is
in compliance with the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe.
The President would be able to waive this section if he submits
to the appropriate congressional committees a certification
that it is in the national security interest of the United
States to do so. The section would also require a 90 day
notice-and-wait prior to the approval of a Russian proposal.
The committee is committed to effective and complete
compliance with the Treaty on Open Skies, provided such
compliance is not allowed to become a threat to the national
security of the United States.
The committees notes its request for a briefing on the
ongoing implementation of the Treaty on Open Skies, and that
this briefing was postponed at the request of the
Administration. The committee looks forward to receiving this
briefing and plans to continue close oversight of this issue.
Section 1223--Limitations on Providing Certain Missile Defense
Information to the Russian Federation
This section would extend the sunset date on certain
measures relating to the provision or prohibition on the
provision of U.S. missile defense information to the Russian
Federation. This section would also add a new prohibition on
the transfer of velocity at burnout information to Russia.
Additionally, this section would add the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of
the House of Representatives to the specified recipients of the
notification required under this section.
Section 1224--Limitation on Availability of Funds to Transfer Missile
Defense Information to the Russian Federation
This section would limit the use of funds in a fiscal year
to transfer missile defense information to the Russian
Federation unless the President has submitted a report to the
congressional defense committees by October 31st of such fiscal
year detailing discussions between the United States and Russia
during the prior fiscal year.
Section 1225--Report on Non-Compliance by the Russian Federation of Its
Obligations under the INF Treaty
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding
the material breach of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty by the Russian Federation, and would require the
President to report not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, on
efforts to have Russia return to being in compliance with the
treaty, and the President's assessment as to whether it remains
in the national security interest of the United States to
remain a party to the treaty.
Section 1226--Sense of Congress Regarding Russian Aggression Toward
Ukraine
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding
Russian aggression towards Ukraine.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee notes with concern
the recent actions undertaken by the Government of the Russian
Federation in Ukraine. The committee believes both the overt
and covert actions taken by the Russian military and Government
to seize and annex Crimea, destabilize eastern Ukraine, and
threaten further military action against the Government of
Ukraine, are clearly meant to coerce the Government and people
of Ukraine into adopting policies and an orientation centered
on Russia and away from Europe and the West.
Section 1227--Annual Report on Military and Security Developments
Involving the Russian Federation
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, not
later than June 1, 2015 and annually thereafter through 2021,
to submit to the specified congressional committees a report on
the current and future military power of the Russian
Federation. The report would address the current and probable
future course of military-technological development of Russian
security and military strategy, and military organizations and
operational concepts, for the 20-year period following the
report. This section would also repeal section 10 of the
Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic
Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-95).
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region
Section 1231--Strategy to Prioritize United States Interests in the
United States Pacific Command Area of Responsibility and Implementation
Plan
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State and the heads of other
Federal departments and agencies, to develop a strategy to
prioritize United States interests in the U.S. Pacific
Command's area of responsibility. This section would further
require the President, acting through the National Security
Council and in coordination with the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, to develop an implementation plan for
the strategy, and to submit a report to Congress containing the
strategy and implementation plans not later than 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 1232--Modifications to Annual Report on Military and Security
Developments Involving the People's Republic of China
This section would modify section 1202 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) to include an additional reporting requirement on
developments in the maritime law enforcement capabilities and
organization of the People's Republic of China.
Section 1233--Report on Goals and Objectives Guiding Military
Engagement with Burma
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit to the
congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives, not later than December 1,
2014, a report on the goals and objectives guiding military-to-
military engagement between the United States and the Union of
Burma. This section would further require the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit
an annual update to the required report to the aforementioned
committees that would sunset after a 5-year period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this Act.
The committee welcomes the commitment to reform made by the
Government of Burma. However, the committee notes that the
Government of Burma needs to progress in: protecting the
individual freedoms and human rights of the Burmese people,
including for all ethnic and religious minorities and
internally displaced populations; establishing civilian control
of the armed forces; severing military-to-military ties with
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; implementing
constitutional and electoral reforms; and implementing
mechanisms for increased governmental transparency and
accountability.
The committee recognizes the role that the U.S. military
can play in improving the Burmese military's understanding of
human rights, the rule of law, and civilian control of the
military. The committee encourages the Department of Defense
and the Department of State to communicate the relationship
between U.S.-Burma military-to-military engagement and reform
efforts undertaken by the Government of Burma.
Section 1234--Report on Department of Defense Munitions Strategy for
United States Pacific Command
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report by April 1, 2015 to the congressional defense
committees, on U.S. Pacific Command's 10-year munitions
strategy, including munitions requirements, gaps and
shortfalls, and investment plans.
Section 1235--Missile Defense Cooperation
This section would express the sense of Congress that
increased missile defense cooperation among the United States,
Japan and the Republic of Korea enhances the security of allies
of the United States in northeast Asia, increases the defense
of forward-based forces of the United States, and enhances the
protection of the United States.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an assessment to identify opportunities for increasing
missile defense cooperation among the United States, Japan, and
the Republic of Korea, and to evaluate options for short-range
missile, rocket, and artillery defense capabilities, including
several specific elements. The Secretary would be required to
brief the congressional defense committees on such assessment
not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
Section 1236--Maritime Capabilities of Taiwan and Its Contribution to
Regional Peace and Stability
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
submit a report on the maritime capabilities of Taiwan and its
contribution to regional peace and stability to the
congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives not later than April 1, 2016.
This section would also express the sense of Congress on
Taiwan.
Section 1237--Independent Assessment on Countering Anti-access and
Area-denial Strategies and Capabilities in the Asia-Pacific Region
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
enter into an agreement with an independent entity to conduct
an assessment of anti-access and area-denial strategies and
capabilities that pose a threat to security in the Asia-Pacific
region and strategies to mitigate such threats. This section
would further require the Secretary to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2015,
containing the assessment and strategies.
Section 1238--Sense of Congress Reaffirming Security Commitment to
Japan
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding
the continued importance of the alliance between the United
States and Japan for Asia-Pacific stability and prosperity.
Section 1239--Sense of Congress on Opportunities to Strengthen
Relationship between the United States and the Republic of Korea
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding
the continued importance of the alliance between the United
States and the Republic of Korea for Asia-Pacific stability and
prosperity.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 1241--Extension of Authority for Support of Special Operations
to Combat Terrorism
This section would extend through 2017 the authority for
support of special operations to combat terrorism pursuant to
section 1208 of the Ronald Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as
amended most recently by section 1203(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81). Further discussion of this provision is contained in the
classified annex to this report.
Section 1242--One-Year Extension of Authorization for Non-Conventional
Assisted Recovery Capabilities
This section would extend by 1 year the authority for non-
conventional assisted recovery capabilities pursuant to
subsection (h) of section 943 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417), as amended most recently by section 1203(c) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81).
Section 1243--Extension and Modification of Authority to Support
Operations and Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq
This section would amend section 1215(f)(1) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), as most recently amended by section 1214 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66), by extending the authority for the Office of Security
Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I) through fiscal year 2015, to
include clarifying that the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, may authorize OSC-I to
conduct training activities in support of Iraqi Ministry of
Defense and Counter Terrorism Service (CTS) personnel at a base
or facility of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to
address capability gaps, integrate processes relating to
intelligence, air sovereignty, combined arms, logistics and
maintenance, and to manage and integrate defense-related
institutions.
Section 1244--Modification of National Security Planning Guidance to
Deny Safe Havens to Al-Qaeda and Its Violent Extremist Affiliates
This section would modify section 1032 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) by requiring the President to provide to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives,
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives,
the required national security planning guidance, including any
updates to such guidance, to deny safe havens to Al Qaeda and
its violent extremist affiliates not later than October 1,
2014. Additionally, this section would add an element to the
required guidance that would describe the feasibility,
resourcing, authorities required, and potential benefit of
conducting multilateral training and equipping of military
forces in relevant countries.
The committee remains concerned about the worldwide
evolution and growth of Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and
associated groups, as noted by non-U.S. Government experts at a
February 2014 committee hearing. Al Qaeda has been able to
evolve and grow largely due to safe havens in certain locations
such as the Syrian Arab Republic, the Republic of Iraq, and
Libya, to name a few.
While section 1032 of Public Law 112-81 required the
President to issue national security planning guidance to deny
safe havens to Al Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates,
it did not require the submission of such guidance to the
relevant congressional committees. However, the conference
report (H. Rept. 112-329) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 requested that the
conferees be briefed on the guidance issued by the President.
The committee notes that such briefing was not provided.
Section 1245--Enhanced Authority to Acquire Goods and Services of
Djibouti in Support of Department of Defense Activities in United
States Africa Command Area of Responsibility
This section would provide the Secretary of Defense with an
enhanced authority to acquire products and services produced in
the Republic of Djibouti in support of Department of Defense
activities in the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) area of
responsibility. The Secretary would be required to make a
determination that: (1) the product or service is to be used
only in support of Department activities in AFRICOM; (2) the
limit on competition or preference for Djiboutian products or
services is vital to the national security interest of the
United States; (3) the Djiboutian product or service is of
equivalent quality to that which would have been otherwise
acquired; and (4) the limitation or preference will not
adversely affect U.S. military or stability operations in
AFRICOM or the U.S. industrial base. The authority provided in
this section would terminate on September 30, 2018.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that such procurement of Djiboutian products or services
is conducted in accordance with Department of Defense
management structure requirements in section 2330(a) of title
10, United States Code, and identified and reported under a
single, joint Department of Defense-wide system for the
management and accountability of contractors operating
overseas. It would also require the Secretary to ensure that
AFRICOM has sufficiently trained staff and resources to conduct
oversight of such procurement activities in order to detect and
deter fraud, waste, and abuse.
Additionally, this section would express the sense of
Congress that U.S. forces should remain forward postured in
Africa and the Middle East; that Djibouti is strategically
located to support U.S. vital national security interests; that
the United States should take definitive steps to maintain its
basing access and agreements with the Government of Djibouti;
that the United States should devise and implement a
comprehensive approach to reinforce the strategic partnership
with the Government of Djibouti; and that the Secretary of
State, the Administrator for the United States Agency for
International Development, and the Secretary of Defense should
take concrete steps to advance and strengthen the relationship
between the United States and the Government of Djibouti.
The committee believes that this is an exceptional
situation and recommends this authority because it recognizes
that the U.S. military basing in Djibouti provides unique
strategic positioning and access to the region, which has and
continues to support vital U.S. national security interests.
Additional detail on the criticality of U.S. basing in Djibouti
is contained in the classified annex to this report. The
committee believes that the United States must take proactive
steps to reinforce a long-term, strategic relationship with the
Government of Djibouti in order to support such vital national
security interests. Elsewhere in this report, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of State, to submit a report to certain committees
outlining the specific steps that the Department of State is
taking to strengthen its strategic relationship with Djibouti.
Section 1246--Strategic Framework for United States Security Force
Assistance and Cooperation in the European and Eurasian Regions
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to develop a
strategic framework for security force assistance and
cooperation in Europe and Eurasia. This section would also
require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of State, to submit a report on the strategic
framework within 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives.
The committee believes that a comprehensive strategic
framework for security force assistance is important for
building and maintaining the partner capacity of European and
Eurasian forces. The committee recognizes and values the
interoperability and combat gains made by European and Eurasian
allied and partner forces, earned as a result of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, and it does not want to see these gains lost after
the ISAF mission ends in December 2014. The committee believes
the strategic framework should focus on those nations for which
the Department of Defense has leveraged its building
partnership capacity authorities, to include the Global Train
and Equip, Warsaw Initiative Fund, and Global Security
Contingency Fund authorities.
Section 1247--Requirement of Department of Defense to Continue
Implementation of United States Strategy to Prevent and Respond to
Gender-based Violence Globally and Participation in Interagency Working
Group
This section would express the sense of Congress that
combating violence against women and girls worldwide is
critical to promoting regional and global stability and
achieving sustainable peace and security. This section would
further require the Secretary of Defense, within 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, to provide a briefing to
the appropriate congressional committees on efforts by the
Department of Defense relating to its participation in the
interagency working group to implement the U.S. Strategy to
Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally, and to
continue implementing the strategy as appropriate.
Section 1248--Department of Defense Situational Awareness of Economic
and Financial Activity
This section would set forth a number of findings and
require the Secretary of Defense to take such steps as
necessary to improve the situational awareness capabilities of
the Department of Defense regarding legal and licit business
transactions of adversaries and potential adversaries, and to
improve the ability of the Department to translate such
capabilities into certain activities of the Department.
Section 1249--Treatment of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan Under the Immigration and Nationality Act
This section would authorize the Secretary of State, after
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the
Attorney General of the United States, or the Secretary of
Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of
State and the Attorney General, to exclude the Kurdistan
Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan
(PUK) from the definition of a terrorist organization in
section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III)) for the
purpose of issuing a temporary visa to a member of the KDP or
PUK.
Additionally, this section would prohibit judicial review
by any court that has jurisdiction to review any determinations
made in accordance with the authority in this section.
Section 1250--Prohibition on the Integration of Certain Missile Defense
Systems
The section would continue the prohibition enacted in
section 233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) regarding the use of
Department of Defense funds to integrate the missile defense
systems of the People's Republic of China into the missile
defense systems of the United States.
Subtitle F--Reports and Sense of Congress Provisions
Section 1261--Report on ``New Normal'' and General Mission Requirements
of United States Africa Command
This section would express a sense of Congress on the force
structure and force posture of AFRICOM within the context of
``New Normal'' and its general mission requirements.
Following the terrorist attack against U.S. facilities in
Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, the U.S. Government
established a ``New Normal'' set of requirements and associated
resourcing worldwide. The committee is aware that with the
current force posture and structure of the U.S. Africa Command
(AFRICOM), the United States is accepting a high level of risk
in defending U.S. posts that have been determined to be ``high
risk, high threat'' as part of the ``New Normal'' requirements.
Moreover, the committee is concerned that AFRICOM does not have
sufficient assigned military forces; intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance assets; crisis response
forces; and enablers to meet the ``New Normal'' requirements.
Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives not later than January 15,
2015, on how the ``New Normal'' has changed AFRICOM's force
posture and force structure requirements. The committee expects
the report to include inputs and views from the Commander, U.S.
Africa Command.
Section 1262--Report on Contractors with the Department of Defense That
Have Conducted Significant Transactions with Iranian Persons or the
Government of Iran
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit an annual report to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives, within 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, that contains:
(1) A list of each contractor with the Department of
Defense that has conducted a significant transaction with an
Iranian individual or corporation;
(2) A list of each contractor with the Department that has
conducted significant transactions with an Iranian individual
or corporation whose property has been blocked by the United
States Government during the 5-year period prior to the
submission of this report; and
(3) The value of such significant transactions.
The period for the annual report required by this section
would not exceed 3 years.
Section 1263--Reports on Nuclear Program of Iran
This section would require the President to submit a report
to Congress, within 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, on the interim agreement related to the Islamic
Republic of Iran's nuclear program, including a verification of
whether Iran is complying with such agreement and an assessment
of the overall state of Iran's nuclear program.
Additionally, this section would require the President to
submit additional reports to Congress on the nuclear program of
Iran. If the interim agreement related to Iran's nuclear
program is renewed or if a comprehensive agreement is entered
into, the President is required to submit to Congress a report
on such interim agreement or comprehensive agreement with the
Government of Iran. These additional reports would be submitted
to Congress not later than 90 days after a renewal of the
interim agreement or 90 days after entering into a
comprehensive agreement with the Government of Iran.
Section 1264--Sense of Congress on United States Presence and
Cooperation in the Arabian Gulf Region to Deter Iran
This section would express the sense of Congress on the
U.S. forward presence and cooperation in the region of the
Arabian Gulf in order to deter the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Elements of this section would include statements that the
United States should: maintain a robust forward presence and
posture in the Arabian Gulf; seek ways to support the security
posture of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and the
State of Israel; move funding of key strategic bases in the
Arabian Gulf region into the Department of Defense's base
budget; and seek to complete status of forces and defense
agreements with GCC countries to support the defense of the
Arabian Gulf.
Furthermore, this section would state that any
comprehensive agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program
should address past and present issues of concern of the United
States, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the United
Nations Security Council. Additionally, this section would
express that any comprehensive agreement should be agreed to by
the United States only if: (1) Iran ceases enrichment of
uranium; (2) Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and
development of its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons,
its ballistic missiles, and ballistic missile launch
technology, including verifiable dismantlement; and (3) the
Government of Iran has ceased providing support for acts of
international terrorism.
Finally, the sense of Congress would state that the United
States should continue to put pressure on Iran's network of
organizations that conduct malign activities, and the U.S.
Government should not enter into a contract with any person or
entity that has violated U.S. sanctions laws with respect to
contracting with the Government of Iran.
Section 1265--Sense of Congress on Modernization of Defense
Capabilities of Poland
The provision would express the sense of Congress that the
Polish defense modernization program is an important
opportunity to strengthen the U.S.-Poland bilateral
relationship.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
OVERVIEW
The budget request for the Department of Defense
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program contained $365.1
million for fiscal year 2015, representing an decrease of
$163.3 million from the amount requested and authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2014. The request included $20.7
million for the Global Nuclear Security (GNS) Program, $256.8
million for CBEP, and $40.7 million for the Proliferation
Prevention Program (PPP).
The committee continues to support the goals of the CTR
program and believes that the program is important to United
States national security. In past years, the committee has
expressed concern that a lack of effective policy guidance and
leadership, as well as programmatic and funding constraints,
have sometimes limited progress of the CTR program. The
committee notes, however, that the CTR program has made
significant achievements, and that much work remains to be done
as new threats emerge. The committee is also aware of the
Department's efforts to identify and streamline CTR
authorities.
Congress has addressed these concerns in recent national
defense authorization acts by: repealing limitations on the use
of CTR funds; expanding CTR authority outside the former Soviet
Union; increasing CTR funding, including funding for new CTR
initiatives; requiring reports by the National Academy of
Sciences and the Secretary of Defense on the development of new
CTR initiatives and metrics; requiring a report by the
Secretary of Defense regarding efforts to complete the chemical
weapons destruction project in the Russian Federation at
Schuch'ye; requiring increased reporting from the Secretary of
Defense on CTR defense and military contacts; providing CTR
programs with authority for urgent threat reduction activities;
authorizing the CTR program to accept international
contributions; and ensuring that the CTR program addresses
threats involving nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and
weapons-related materials, technologies, and expertise.
The committee notes that the CTR Cooperative Biological
Engagement Program (CBEP) now encompasses 70 percent of the CTR
budget request. The committee reaffirms its view, stated in the
committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, and reaffirmed
in the two most recent committee reports accompanying the House
of Representatives-passed national defense authorization acts,
that biological threat reduction and engagement ``should be
guided by a comprehensive long-term interagency engagement and
coordination; rigorous Department management and oversight;
coordination and integration with other Department programs and
activities; and concrete metrics for measuring progress.'' The
committee further reaffirms its view that the CTR program as a
whole should ``maintain a strong focus'' on the full range of
threat reduction challenges. The committee continues to believe
that concrete metrics remain important for measuring the impact
and effectiveness of CBEP activities. Lastly, the committee
welcomes efforts by the Department of Defense to actively
consult with the committee and to keep it fully informed of
efforts and developments in these areas.
The committee recommends $365.1 million, the amount of the
budget request, for the CTR program. The committee believes
that no CTR funds for fiscal year 2015 should be authorized for
activities with the Russian Federation based on ongoing Russian
aggression towards Ukraine. Therefore, the committee recommends
$17.7 million for the GNS Program, a decrease of $3.0 million;
$254.3 million for CBEP, a decrease of $2.4 million; and $46.1
million for PPP, an increase of $5.4 million.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Cooperative Biological Engagement Program
The budget request contained $365.1 million for the
Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)
program, of which $256.8 million was requested for the
Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP). The committee
notes that the CBEP share of the total CTR program budget
continues to increase. The budget request would allocate 70
percent of the fiscal year 2015 CTR funds to CBEP as compared
to the 40 percent that was allocated in fiscal year 2011.
The committee questions the focus on infrastructure
projects that the CBEP continues to fund, with approximately
$34.7 million of CBEP's budget request allocated towards
laboratory construction and renovation in the former Soviet
Union republics. While the committee supports the CBEP mission
to build the capabilities and capacities of key partners to
rapidly detect, investigate, report, and secure dangerous
biological pathogens, it is concerned about the CBEP's focus on
building and renovating laboratories. The committee is aware of
the program's plan to phase out funding for these
infrastructure projects in the next few years as the projects
are completed. However, the committee believes that, in the
current fiscal environment, the Department should focus its CTR
resources on more efficient and effective means to build
partnership capacities to counter biological weapons of mass
destruction. The committee will continue to oversee these
projects to ensure the CBEP is properly positioned to meet
evolving biological threats, both in the region and around the
world.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
and Funds
This section would define the programs and funds that are
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs and funds as those
authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act, and
specify that CTR funds shall remain available for obligation
for 3 fiscal years.
Section 1302--Funding Allocations
This section would allocate specific amounts for each
program under the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR) program from within the overall $365.1 million
that the committee would authorize for the CTR program. The
allocation under this section reflects the amount of the budget
request for fiscal year 2015. This section would also require
notifications to Congress 15 days before the Secretary of
Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2015 funds for
purposes other than those specifically authorized. In addition,
this section would provide limited authority to obligate
amounts for a program element under the CTR program in excess
of the amount specifically authorized for that purpose.
Section 1303--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Cooperative
Threat Reduction Activities with Russian Federation
This section would limit Cooperative Threat Reduction
fiscal year 2015 funding to the Russian Federation until the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, certifies to the appropriate congressional committees
that Russia is respecting the sovereignty of Ukrainian
territory, no longer acting inconsistently with the
Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and in compliance
with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. This
section would include a waiver for the Secretary of Defense,
pending a notification, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, to the appropriate congressional committees that such
contact or cooperation is in the national security interest of
the United States and a period of 30 days has elapsed following
the notification.
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Progress on Determining Sufficient Working Capital Fund Cash Balances
The committee has been concerned for a number of years that
the determination of prices and rates for Defense Working
Capital Fund activities is driven by an arbitrary, outdated
goal of maintaining 7 to 10 days of cash to sustain business
operations. This metric cannot respond to changes related to
external pressures such as fluctuations in commodity markets
that are outside of the Department of Defense's control.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a report
examining a range of alternative cash balance parameters by
which the revolving funds could be managed to sustain a single
rate or price to the customer throughout the fiscal year.
Having found this report to be insufficient, the committee
directed a study in section 1402 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383)
requiring an independent review of each working capital fund
within the Department to ascertain the appropriate cash corpus
required to maintain good financial management of each fund.
This study was thorough and informative but did not provide for
change within management of the working capital funds. In the
committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013, the committee
responded by recommending that the Department modify its
Financial Management Regulations to adjust the range of the
cash corpus required for fuel-related working capital funds to
mitigate the continued fluctuation of rates charged to the
customer during the fiscal year.
The committee commends the Department for initiating
processes to determine the correct cash corpus thresholds for
each working capital fund. Department of Defense Financial
Management Regulation 7000.14-R, Volume 2B, Chapter 9, 090103,
Cash Management Policy, is under revision to require each
activity to determine and justify its cash requirements in
terms of mission and management factors, such as collection and
disbursement cycles. The Department anticipates that cash
requirements will vary by activity and anticipated workload
levels. The new cash target range will support a number of
requirements including the following:
(1) Near-term operational requirements (formerly 7 to 10
days);
(2) Capital investment program disbursements;
(3) Any positive accumulating operating result budgeted for
return to customers;
(4) An amount of cash equal to undisbursed direct
appropriations (lags over a 4-year period);
(5) A commodity/market adjustment for cost changes;
(6) Cash required for undelivered orders that will be
delivered after the budget year;
(7) Multiple disbursement cycles between collection cycles
(for example, extra payroll cycle); and
(8) Mitigation of risk/cash loss when implementing a
business process change.
The committee looks forward to future budget submissions
with prices and rates set to maintain an adequate cash balance
to absorb external pressures, thereby maintaining a steady,
dependable rate for the customer throughout the fiscal year.
Secure Sources of Materials Critical to National Security
In section 1412 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), the Congress provided
authority for the National Defense Stockpile Manager to acquire
six materials critical to national security, two of which were
compounds of rare earth elements: dysprosium metal and yttrium
oxide. The committee notes that foreign suppliers,
historically, accounted for the majority of global production
of these materials and have implemented multiple controls on
the production and export of dysprosium metal and yttrium
oxide.
Based upon research by the Department of Defense, new
investment in the rare earth supply chain may have increased
the availability of these materials from domestic sources. As
the Department prepares to procure quantities of these
materials for the Defense National Stockpile, the committee is
concerned that market dynamics may result in these materials
being provided by historically foreign suppliers rather than
from secure domestic sources. The committee encourages the
National Defense Stockpile Manager to maximize the utilization
of sources that refine dysprosium metal and yttrium oxide in
the United States.
Upgrading Beryllium within the National Defense Stockpile
The committee notes that the existing National Defense
Stockpile (NDS) for beryllium, a strategic and critical defense
material, is presently not in a form which is usable within the
defense supply chain. Viable sources of beryllium are only
found in the United States and the Russian Federation. The
committee continues to believe that military readiness requires
continued quick access to beryllium. The committee recognizes
the concerted effort on the part of the Department of Defense
and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which administers the
NDS, to upgrade the beryllium stockpile. In its latest Annual
Materials Plan, the DLA stated its plan to upgrade more than 17
short tons of beryllium material. The committee urges the DLA
to upgrade this material quickly, thereby ensuring that the
beryllium held in the NDS is capable of quick insertion into
the defense supply chain, potentially mitigating supply chain
risk.
In addition, the committee directs the Administrator of the
National Defense Stockpile to brief the House Committee on
Armed Services not later than September 1, 2014, on the
progress of and future plans for the upgrade program for
beryllium.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Programs
Section 1401--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize appropriations for Defense
Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in section 4501
of division D of this Act.
Section 1402--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
This section would authorize appropriations for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense at the level
identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Section 1403--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
Wide
This section would authorize appropriations for Drug
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the
level identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Section 1404--Defense Inspector General
This section would authorize appropriations for the Office
of the Inspector General at the level identified in section
4501 of division D of this Act.
Section 1405--Defense Health Program
This section would authorize appropriations for the Defense
Health Program at the levels identified in section 4501 of
division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile
Section 1411--Revisions to Previously Authorized Disposals from the
National Defense Stockpile
This section would authorize revisions on limitations in
asset sales contained in section 3303(a)(7) of the Strom
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1999 (Public Law 105-261), as most recently amended by section
1412(a) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), to increase the
Department of Defense's stockpile commodity disposal authority
by $50.0 million, and extend this authority from 2016 to 2019.
This section would further authorize revisions on
limitations in asset sales contained in section 3402(b)(5) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
(Public Law 106-65), as most recently amended by section 1412
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81), to increase the Department of Defense's
stockpile commodity disposal authority by $20.0 million, and
extend this authority from 2016 to 2019.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 1421--Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration
Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer funds from the Defense Health Program to the Joint
Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Facility Demonstration Fund created by section 1704 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-84).
Section 1422--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home
This section would authorize $63.4 million to be
appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home during fiscal year 2015.
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee notes that section 1008 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364) requires the budget submission to Congress for
each fiscal year to include:
(1) A request for the appropriation of funds for ongoing
operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan;
(2) An estimate of all funds expected to be required in
that fiscal year for operations; and
(3) A detailed justification of the funds requested.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations to
be available upon enactment of this Act to support overseas
contingency operations.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment
The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations
contained no funding for National Guard and Reserve Component
Equipment account. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee notes
that the base budget request contained $3.3 billion for
National Guard and Reserve Component equipment.
The specific amount of resources, including equipment,
needed to adequately sustain the National Guard and Reserve
Component's operational reserve status remains a concern
because of the fiscal environment, especially given the dual
mission responsibility of the National Guard and Reserve
Components, particularly the National Guard. The committee
recognizes the National Guard and Reserve Components continue
to report significant equipment shortages in modernized
equipment.
The committee believes additional funds would help
eliminate identified shortfalls in the areas of critical dual-
use equipment. The committee expects these funds to be used for
the purposes of, but not limited to, the procurement of:
aircraft, missiles, wheeled and tracked combat vehicles,
tactical wheeled vehicles, ammunition, small arms, tactical
radios to include single channel ground and airborne radio
systems, non-system training devices, logistics automation
systems, remote weapon stations, chemical/biological protective
shelters, internal and external fuel tanks for rotorcraft, and
other critical dual-use procurement items for the National
Guard and Reserve Components.
The committee recommends additional funding for a National
Guard and Reserve Component equipment account within the
Overseas Contingency Operations budget request. The committee
recommends $3.3 billion, the full amount of the base budget
request, for National Guard and Reserve equipment.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations
Section 1501--Purpose
This section would establish this title and make
authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of
this Act for the Department of Defense, in addition to amounts
otherwise authorized in this Act, to provide for additional
costs due to overseas contingency operations.
Section 1502--Procurement
This section would authorize an additional $6.2 billion for
procurement programs.
Section 1503--Operation and Maintenance
This section would authorize an additional $64.0 billion
for operation and maintenance programs, and $635.0 million for
maintaining, operating, and upgrading A-10 aircraft.
Section 1504--Military Personnel
This section would authorize an additional $7.1 billion for
military personnel.
Section 1505--Other Appropriations
This section would authorize an additional $1.5 billion for
the Defense Health Program, Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-wide, and National Guard and Reserve
Equipment.
Subtitle B--Financial Matters
Section 1511--Treatment as Additional Authorizations
This section would state that amounts authorized to be
appropriated by this title are in addition to amounts otherwise
authorized to be appropriated by this Act.
Section 1512--Special Transfer Authority
This section would authorize the transfer of up to $3.0
billion of additional war-related funding authorizations in
this title among the accounts in this title.
Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters
Section 1521--Continuation of Existing Limitations on the Use of Funds
in the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
This section would continue the existing limitations on the
use of funds in the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund subject to
the conditions of section 1513 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as
amended by section 1531(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383),
through fiscal year 2015.
Section 1522--Use of and Transfer of Funds from Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Fund
This section would authorize various transfer authorities,
reporting requirements, and other associated activities for the
Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Fund, as managed
by the Joint IED Defeat organization.
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS
OVERVIEW
The committee has determined it necessary to reorganize
title XVI to combine missile defense, nuclear forces, space,
cyberspace, and intelligence sections within one title. These
new subtitles have been rearranged from positions from past
national defense authorization acts to now reflect the current
title XVI.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Additional Homeland Missile Defense Interceptor Site
The committee notes that section 239 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) provided for certain briefings on the development of an
additional homeland defense interceptor site and section 4201
of that Act provided $20.0 million for planning activities
related to such site.
The committee is also aware that on February 26, 2014, the
Commander, U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) testified that:
''[T]he third site, if you built it, would give us better
weapons access, it'd give us increased inventory and increased
battle space with regards to a threat coming from the direction
of the Middle East. So those are just facts. And that's what it
would give to the combatant commander--and that's me--the one
that's accountable for the defense of the homeland from the
ICBM threats . . . [Iran has] not stopped aspirational goals
towards ICBM technologies. They have successfully put a
missile--space vehicle into orbit, and that demonstrates the
types of technologies that you need to develop an ICBM . . . I
think it was very prudent to direct us--or the Missile Defense
Agency--to do a site selection.''
The committee acknowledges the assessment of the Commander
of NORTHCOM and therefore directs the Director, Missile Defense
Agency (MDA), in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Northern
Command, to provide the House Committee on Armed Services
briefings not less than every 90 days through the end of fiscal
year 2015, and starting not later than September 15, 2014, on
the following:
(1) Progress updating the cost estimates provided to the
committee in March 2012 for the additional homeland missile
defense site;
(2) Progress updating the Facility Requirement Documents,
such as those developed for the ground-based interceptor site
at Ft. Greely, Alaska, and the planned site in the Republic of
Poland, also known as the Third Site, and other planning and
designing processes related to the construction of an
additional homeland missile defense interceptor site; and
(3) Any additional matters they deem useful.
Furthermore, the committee directs the Director, MDA, in
coordination with the Commander, U.S. NORTHCOM, not later than
September 15, 2014, to provide the congressional defense
committees a written and unclassified assessment of which of
the potential sites for a homeland missile defense site under
consideration offers the best site for the defense of the
homeland from intercontinental ballistic missiles from Iran and
whether such site is different than the site determined by the
Commander in his 2007/2008 homeland missile defense study (the
2007-2008 U.S. NORTHCOM Ground-based Interceptor Study).
Air Force Cyber
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 budget
request is generally characterized by reductions in most
mission areas except cyber. This trend is true across all the
military services, including the Air Force. However, the
committee believes that for the Air Force, it is particularly
difficult to understand the breadth and depth of investment and
focus in cyber given the dispersion of cyber manpower across
multiple program areas and operating environments.
The committee is concerned that disaggregating the cyber
workforce across multiple expenditure centers and projects in
such a manner not only makes understanding the entirety of the
cyber investment more difficult, it generates greater risk for
suboptimizing the cyber workforce, increased unintentional
redundancy in tasking, and challenges in managing operational
roles and responsibilities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in coordination with the Director of the National
Security Agency, to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees, the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate by February 16, 2015,
that captures the aggregate Air Force investment in cyber,
laying out where the various elements of Air Force cyber are
nested, and how those elements are integrated within the
overall Air Force and Department of Defense cyber enterprises.
The report should focus both on the current laydown of
personnel as well as the envisioned end-state manning
construct. It should also include a discussion on how the Air
Force has constructed the various operational chains of command
within the service and between the service elements and United
States Cyber Command.
Air Force Distributed Common Ground/Surface System
The Air Force Distributed Common Ground/Surface System
(DCGS-AF) is a family of existing and planned systems providing
multi-intelligence tasking, processing, exploitation, and
dissemination capabilities at the Joint Task Force level and
below. The committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 request
for DCGS-AF totaled $782.4 million and included over 7,600
personnel. Resident in the Processing and Exploitation
expenditure center, DCGS-AF has traditionally been viewed in
that functional context.
The committee is concerned that through the course of
supporting combat operations over the past 12 years, DCGS-AF
has begun to evolve beyond the intelligence processing and
exploitation functions to include single-intelligence and even
multi-intelligence source analysis. The committee believes this
presents an important opportunity for the Air Force to clarify
the operational role of the DCGS-AF enterprise, taking every
measure to ensure full coordination between enterprise elements
and complete deconfliction of functions, tasking, and mission
responsibilities where possible.
The committee is specifically concerned that initiatives
like the DCGS-AF Analysis and Reporting Team (DART) System risk
stepping beyond the appropriate functional boundaries for the
system, unduly broadening the mission, and distracting the
operational focus. However, the committee believes that the
future Analysis and Targeting Wing must take full advantage of
technical advances accomplished within the DCGS-AF as part of
Air Force efforts to clarify and cement appropriate mission
assignments across the intelligence enterprise.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a report to the congressional defense and
intelligence committees by June 1, 2015, that describes the
future of DCGS analytic and processing, exploitation, and
dissemination responsibilities. The report should describe
which intelligence functions, such as processing, exploitation,
and analysis, should reside at the service intelligence
centers, the Joint Intelligence and Operations Centers, and at
DCGS-AF nodes. The report should outline a proposed Plan of
Action and Milestone to execute the transformation to the
stated end state, including anticipated costs and manpower
requirements across the enterprise and a plan for satisfying
those requirements.
Assessment of Foreign Nuclear Weapons Programs
As the United States embarks on a decades-long effort to
recapitalize the nuclear deterrent, the committee believes a
comprehensive assessment of foreign nuclear weapons programs
would help inform decisions on policies, programs, and
resources.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the
Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence and
Counterintelligence and the Director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency to submit a joint report to the
congressional defense committees, the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, and the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence by January 31, 2015, on foreign nuclear weapons
programs. Such report should include a comprehensive assessment
and description of current and developmental capabilities in
foreign countries regarding nuclear weapons and their delivery
systems. The report should also discuss nuclear doctrine and
employment strategy, nuclear explosive and subcritical testing,
advanced nuclear weapon research programs, the number of
nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and other matters as the
Directors determine appropriate. Such report should be
unclassified to the maximum extent consistent with the
protection of classified information, but should also have
classified annexes at the appropriate levels of classification.
Biometrics for Identity and Access Management
The committee is aware that the Joint Information
Environment is developing a reference architecture for identity
and access management. Currently, for enterprise applications,
this is done through the use of passwords and common access
cards. As the Department of Defense moves to a future
architecture for security and identity management, the
committee believes that the Department should look at ways to
integrate biometrics capability into that architecture for
improved two-factor authentication.
Additionally, the committee believes that the Department
should examine the possibility of implementing enterprise-scale
biometric enrollment solutions in order to gain efficiencies
and better secure sensitive data. As the Department has already
transitioned from the collection of fingerprints on ink and
paper cards to electronic fingerprints for the conduct of
background checks, the committee believes that further
improvements can be achieved by leveraging web-enabled
submission technologies.
Briefing and Report on the Implementation of the Secretary of Defense's
Plans for Cruise Missile Defense of the United States
The committee shares the concerns of the Commander, U.S.
Northern Command, who testified on February 26, 2014, about the
rising threat of cruise missile attack on the United States
homeland and commends the Department of Defense for beginning
to address this threat in an affordable manner. The Commander
testified that:
``[W]e've been directed by the Secretary to ensure that we
are also looking at how to provide effective defense against
cruise missiles in a way that outpaces any threats, to include
Russians . . . and that's a three-phased approach that's been
approved by the Pentagon. And it starts with getting the
national capital region right. And right now, we're going
through a test phase where two things have been added or are
being added to the national capital region--the stateside
affordable radar, in conjunction with a joint elevated net
sensor, the JLENS balloons. And what they're trying to
accomplish is integrating that into an overall defensive plan
that allows us to see, detect, track, warn and in the future
hopefully engage cruise missiles that could pose a threat to
the national capital region. Then the issue will be if the
cruise missile threat continues to evolve, how do we then take
and export that capability where we think we might need it to
defend other strategically or critical infrastructure locations
in the United States and Canada.''
The committee supported the Secretary of Defense's plan in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Public Law 113-66). However, the committee is concerned that
the Secretary's plan is in danger of not being executed in only
its second year of implementation. The committee is aware that
the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization had
been responsible for implementation and funding for the initial
capability in fiscal year 2014, but that responsibility is
shifting to a military service in fiscal year 2015. The
committee is aware that at least two of the key programs in the
Secretary's plan are not funded by the responsible military
service in the first year of its responsibility for doing so.
However, to more fully understand the impacts of the fiscal
year 2015 budget request, the committee directs the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force and the Commander, U.S. Northern
Command, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than June 30, 2014, explaining the impacts
on the Secretary's cruise missile defense plan of the potential
delays included in the fiscal year 2015 budget request and how
the Chairman believes these potential delays can be avoided,
including through reprogramming actions if necessary.
The committee directs the Chairman, in consultation with
the Commander, U.S. Northern Command, and such other persons or
agencies he deems expedient, to submit to the congressional
defense committees a report not later than February 1, 2015,
that includes the following: an identification of the longer-
term coordination challenges within the Department of Defense
and the federal government concerning other government radar
assets that could be useful to this mission and a plan to
ensure their availability; an identification of any air space
challenges that may be present at a more advantageous
geographic location for defense of the national capital region
and a plan to address them; views of, and recommendations from,
the North American Air Domain Awareness Surveillance (NAADAS)
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA); and a recommendation for the
designation of a responsible Departmental authority to
coordinate planning for the cruise missile defense mission and
acquisition of related military capabilities.
Briefing on Funding Modernization of the Nuclear Deterrent
Given the long timeframes and costs associated with
programs to modernize the nation's nuclear deterrent, the
committee believes it is imperative that such efforts be based
upon sound long-term planning. The nation is embarking upon a
decades-long effort to modernize a nuclear deterrent that last
saw major recapitalization in the 1980s. These current and
future efforts include life extension of nuclear warheads,
development and procurement of new delivery systems (ballistic
missile submarines, nuclear-capable bombers, dual-capable
tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, and ground-based
intercontinental ballistic missiles), modernization of nuclear
command and control systems, and construction of new nuclear
infrastructure.
In a 2013 report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated
the cost of operating, sustaining, and modernizing the nuclear
triad over the next decade at approximately $355.0 billion.
While the Department of Defense's estimate contained in the
reports submitted pursuant to section 1043 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) is lower, the committee notes that this report did not
include expected costs for the new bomber or replacement
intercontinental ballistic missiles because of uncertainty in
these programs' direction. The committee is pleased that the
Department plans to include rough estimates for these costs in
its next report, and encourages the Department to make its
assumptions clear to enable consistent comparisons between
various cost estimates.
The committee is aware that many of the planned nuclear
programs are expected to enter service in the 2030s, and is
aware of significant production and funding challenges to
successfully execute this important recapitalization effort.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees no
later than October 31, 2014, on the Department's process for
planning, prioritizing, and estimating costs for sustaining and
modernizing the nuclear triad beyond the current 10-year
reporting requirement. This briefing should include relevant
measures to ensure that these plans are executable and cost-
effective, and discussion of the challenges associated with
such very-long-term planning.
Briefing on Number of B61-12 Nuclear Gravity Bombs to Be Produced
The committee notes the value of providing a credible
extended nuclear deterrent to U.S. allies. The committee
recognizes that the ongoing B61 Life Extension Program (LEP)
will produce B61-12 nuclear gravity bombs to contribute to both
extended deterrence and the U.S. strategic deterrent. The
committee believes the number of B61-12 bombs to be produced by
the LEP must be appropriately sized to meet the requirements of
extended and strategic deterrence, and should be informed by
geopolitical developments in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere around
the world.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, the Commander of U.S.
European Command, the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and
the Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide a briefing to
the committee by January 15, 2015, on the analysis and
requirements that have informed the determination of the number
of B61-12 bombs to be produced by the LEP. This briefing should
include analysis regarding the number required to provide a
credible extended deterrent to U.S. allies around the world,
the number required for forward-deployment and to be available
for forward-deployment, the number required for the U.S.
strategic deterrent, and a timeframe for when a final decision
must be made regarding the total number of B61-12s to be
produced by the LEP.
Briefing on Plutonium Strategy
The committee directs the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons
Council, in consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear
Security, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by
September 15, 2014, on the costs, benefits, risks, challenges,
opportunities, requirements, and potential impacts on other
programs associated with pursuing a plutonium strategy that
achieves a pit production capacity of 50 to 80 plutonium pits
per year in 2027 as compared to a strategy that achieves such
capacity in 2031.
Comptroller General Assessment of U.S. Cyber Command
The committee notes that according to the Secretary of
Defense, cyberspace is the new terrain for warfare where
adversaries seek to do harm to the Nation, the economy, and its
citizens. Adversaries, such as nations, insiders, terrorists,
criminal groups, hackers, and other individuals and
organizations, use an array of cyber tactics that could
threaten our nation's security. The unique nature of cyber-
based attacks can vastly enhance their reach and impact. To
address these threats, the Department of Defense established
U.S. Cyber Command as a sub-unified command under U.S.
Strategic Command.
In 2010 and 2011, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) reported that the Department's and U.S. Cyber Command's
efforts could benefit from additional detail and clarity and
that they had not fully defined long-term mission requirements
and desired capabilities to guide the military services'
efforts to recruit, train, and provide forces with appropriate
skill sets. In 2014, GAO also reported on the Department's
planning efforts to maintain continuity of operations in a
degraded cyber environment.
U.S. Cyber Command achieved full operational capability in
October 2010, and is currently responsible for planning,
coordinating, integrating, synchronizing, and conducting
activities to direct the operations and defense of specified
Department of Defense information networks, and to prepare to
conduct full spectrum military cyberspace operations, when
directed, to enable actions in all domains and ensure U.S. and
allied freedom of action in cyberspace while denying the same
to our adversaries. As U.S. Cyber Command continues to develop
and grow, it is essential that it does so as efficiently and
effectively as possible. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2015, on the
organization, missions, and authorities of U.S. Cyber Command
and its operational relationship with the geographic combatant
commands. This report should include a review of the existing
organizational structure of the U.S. Cyber Command, including
the extent to which:
(1) The Department has clearly defined U.S. Cyber Command's
mission, responsibilities, and authorities;
(2) U.S. Cyber Command's organization, personnel, and
structure support cyberspace operations and leverage
relationships with the combatant commands, military services,
and defense while minimizing potential overlap or duplication
of effort;
(3) U.S. Cyber Command coordinates and supports the
operations and activities of the geographic combatant commands,
including identifying the offensive and defensive cyber rules
of engagement for U.S. Cyber Command and geographic combatant
commands and conducting assessments to identify needed cyber
capabilities; and
(4) Effective coordination mechanisms have been established
between U.S. Cyber Command and other Federal agencies that have
a role in cyberspace operations.
Comptroller General Assessment on Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance
Airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(ISR) systems provide critical insight to the warfighter across
the spectrum of operations from combat to peacetime. Commanders
of the combatant commands recognize the advantages that ISR
provides, and therefore have significant demand and
requirements for the use of these platforms in their areas of
operation. The military departments must balance the warfighter
requirements and overall investments to meet a broader defense
strategy. Addressing the appropriate level of ISR capacity and
capability appears to be a significant and recurring challenge
for the Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess the processes by which the
Department determines its airborne intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance investments and balances capability and
capacity in order to meet commanders of the combatant commands'
critical ISR requirements. The Comptroller General should
provide a report to the congressional defense and intelligence
committees by February 1, 2015. The report should address the
extent to which the Department of Defense has the necessary:
(1) Risk and resource management structures in place to
validate, prioritize, and address airborne ISR collection
requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands;
(2) Airborne ISR capabilities to meet current intelligence
requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands;
(3) Airborne ISR investment strategy, including the
appropriate capability and capacity of platforms and sensors
relative to current and anticipated intelligence requirements
of the commanders of the combatant commands; and
(4) Any related matters the Comptroller General finds
appropriate.
Comptroller General Evaluation on Department of Defense Efforts to
Protect Information and Systems from Insider Threats
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
implemented a number of measures, both technical and
administrative, to try to mitigate the threat from privileged
insiders. That process began with the unauthorized disclosures
from Bradley Manning, but clearly gaps continue to exist that
have been exploited by Edward Snowden. The committee remains
concerned that the Department's efforts have not been
comprehensive enough or implemented swiftly enough to get ahead
of the problem. The committee is also concerned that the
Department does not have an adequate baseline or rigorous
metrics to assess the effectiveness or performance of the
measures that are in place.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by January 15, 2015, evaluating the
Department's efforts at protecting against insider threats.
This report should address the following issues:
(1) To what extent has the Department assessed and
mitigated for the threat, vulnerabilities, and consequences
that insiders pose to Department of Defense information and
systems the Department uses?
(2) To what extent has the Department developed and
implemented an insider threat detection and prevention program
consistent with guidance and standards developed by the Insider
Threat Task Force?
(3) To what extent have lessons learned from prior insider
threat incidents been incorporated into the Department's
insider threat detection and prevention program?
(4) Has the Department reached out to other Federal
agencies, foreign governments, or the private sector to
identify best practices and lessons learned with regard to
insider threats; and to what extent have those best practices
and lessons learned been incorporated into the Department's
insider threat detection and prevention program?
(5) How well has the Department been performing on the
assessments, both self-assessments and external assessments,
called for in Executive Order 13587; and to what extent has the
Department developed corrective action plans to address the
findings in a timely manner?
(6) What additional areas need to be addressed, either by
technical systems or additional policies?
Comptroller General Review of Nuclear Weapons Council
The role of the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) established
by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987
(Public Law 99-661) has evolved with time and national needs.
Today, the NWC's primary responsibilities focus on coordination
and joint decisionmaking between the Department of Defense and
the Department of Energy with respect to U.S. nuclear weapon
policies, programs, schedules, and budgets.
Over the past several years, the NWC has considered and
approved a series of actions, programs, and plans for the
future of the U.S. nuclear weapons program that have shortly
thereafter been thwarted by Department of Energy resource
constraints and differing priorities. This tension has been
exacerbated by Department of Energy's increasing reliance on
annual budget authority transfers from Department of Defense
(totaling over $1.0 billion each year) to accomplish its
nuclear modernization mission. Recent defense authorization
bills have sought to provide the NWC greater insight into
Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration
budget and budgeting process, but coordination and transparency
problems remain apparent.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by April 1, 2015, containing an assessment of the
Nuclear Weapons Council's role, responsibilities, and
effectiveness in coordinating Department of Defense and
Department of Energy policies, programs, schedules, and budgets
for developing, sustaining, and modernizing nuclear delivery
systems, nuclear weapons, and their supporting infrastructure.
The Comptroller General should assess: (1) the authorities and
responsibilities of the NWC; (2) the decisionmaking processes
and procedures of the NWC and its subordinate committees; and
(3) the ability of the NWC to implement, oversee, and ensure
its decisions are successfully executed. The Comptroller
General's report should include recommendations to the
Department of Defense and Department of Energy, or matters for
congressional consideration, as appropriate, to improve the
effectiveness of the NWC.
Conventional Prompt Strike Capability Research, Development, and
Acquisition
The committee is aware that in testimony before it on April
2, 2014, the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command stated:
``Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) capability offers the
opportunity to rapidly engage high-value targets without
resorting to nuclear options. CPS could provide precision and
responsiveness in Anti-Access Area Denial environments while
simultaneously minimizing unintended military, political,
environmental, economic, or cultural consequences. I support
continuing research and development of these important
capabilities.''
The committee agrees. The committee recognizes the success
of the Army's Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) test conducted
on November 17, 2011, though it notes the failures of the
Hypersonic Technology Vehicle tests. The committee is also
aware of the planned flight test 2 of the AHW technology
development system that will demonstrate operationally suitable
ranges and performance as well as additional technologies
needed to support continued development of this capability.
The committee is aware that following flight test 2, the
Department of Defense plans to examine the feasibility of
deploying a hypersonic prompt strike weapon on a submarine
platform. The committee believes it is prudent to undertake
these efforts but is concerned about the budget sufficiency to
do so. The committee is also concerned that there is no clear
development path of an Army system. The committee believes that
a third flight test of the AHW system could provide useful
information to inform decisions about such a development path.
The committee is also concerned that with the budget
request for fiscal year 2015, and the Future Years Defense
Program, there is not sufficient funding requested and planned
for the transition of this technology to a military service for
a full-scale development and acquisition program when the
technology has reached appropriate maturity.
The committee notes that the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review
stated that the Administration planned to deploy these
capabilities, ``while not negatively affecting the stability of
our nuclear relationships with Russia or China.'' The committee
agrees with this policy. The committee also notes that it
directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a report on any
policy considerations concerning any potential ambiguity
problems regarding the launch of a conventionally armed missile
from submarine platforms and any potential verification
measures that may be pursued in the Joint Explanatory Statement
(Committee Print No.2) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The committee has not
yet received this directed report; it expects to receive a
detailed understanding of how the Department plans to evaluate
and resolve these potential problems, including potential
cooperative measures.
The committee is also concerned that there does not appear
to be an Army development program in the Department's plans,
notwithstanding the fact that the only success the United
States has seen with these technologies is the Army's AHW
demonstrator. The committee believes it is prudent to consider
whether a third flight test of the AHW could contribute to the
Department's understanding of the feasibility of an Army
development path.
The committee therefore directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, jointly with
the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees not later than February 1,
2015, that includes the following: a detailed plan for the
future of CPS, including an estimated timeline for completion
of current research and development activities and associated
projected cost; a determination about which additional
strategic infrastructure technologies and enabling capabilities
may be required to support CPS; opportunities for inter-service
collaboration in development of common technology;
opportunities and efforts to transition technologies developed
under this program to current and future weapons systems; a
date by which CPS programs will be transitioned to military
services for full development and acquisition; an assessment of
the utility of a third AHW flight test; an assessment of the
key technologies that could be demonstrated through a third
development test; and, an updated assessment of threat for
which the military requirement for this capability was
validated.
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Review of Missile Defense Agency
Tests and Targets Efficiencies
The committee is aware that the budget request for fiscal
year 2015 and the Future Years Defense Program contains
significant and meaningful efficiencies in the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA) ballistic missile tests and targets programs. The
committee commends the efforts of the Director, MDA to achieve
these hundreds of millions of dollars in savings by the
measures proposed and believes these funds can and should be
reinvested into important modernization programs for the
ballistic missile defense system.
To support the Director, MDA, the committee directs the
Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), in
coordination with the Director, MDA, to provide a briefing to
the House Committee on Armed Services not later than October
31, 2014, detailing the views of the Director, CAPE on the
likelihood that the proposed efficiencies in MDA's test and
targets programs can be realized and the Director's views as to
whether there are opportunities to achieve further efficiencies
in fiscal year 2015 and the Future Years Defense Program.
Defense Industrial Base Information Sharing for Cybersecurity
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
maintains a program of information sharing with its defense
industrial base (DIB) known as the DIB Information Assurance/
Computer Security program. The committee is aware that this
program has been successfully sharing classified government
threat information with its industrial base, and has been
expanding its network of voluntary partners of the past few
years. The committee believes that the Department continues to
prioritize efforts to help secure the networks and information
systems of DIB companies, and that continued attention by
Department leadership is needed to ensure that defense
industrial base companies are making the maximum possible
effort toward protecting their systems. Furthermore, the
committee encourages the Department to recognize and account
for participation in relevant cybersecurity information-sharing
structures to the greatest extent possible when making
procurement decisions.
Defense Intelligence Priorities
As part of both the Department of Defense and the
Intelligence Community (IC), the Defense Intelligence Agency
(DIA) is dually tasked with providing intelligence collection,
analysis, and support specifically responsive to the Department
of Defense as well as national requirements established through
the National Intelligence Priorities Framework (NIPF). The
committee believes that both roles are critical, but can be
difficult to balance. The committee also understands that
measuring satisfaction of NIPF requirements may be easier than
measuring the satisfaction of Department-specific requirements.
In part, the committee believes this is due to difficulties
with identifying Department-specific requirements in a holistic
manner.
Section 922 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) requires the Secretary of
Defense to establish a written policy governing the internal
coordination and prioritization of intelligence priorities of
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the
combatant commands, and the military departments to improve
identification of the intelligence needs of the Department of
Defense. Given this new policy, the committee directs the
Director, DIA, to provide an assessment to the congressional
defense and intelligence committees by October 1, 2014, of the
following:
(1) A specific description of how the new policy is being
implemented in terms of driving and focusing DIA intelligence
efforts to support the Department;
(2) How efforts to incorporate the new policy are being
balanced with DIA's responsibilities pursuant to the NIPF;
(3) The extent to which any other Department of Defense or
IC policies or guidance impact DIA's implementation of the new
policy; and
(4) Any recommendations to further improve the Department's
identification of its specific requirements and DIA's ability
to respond to such requirements.
Directed Energy for Missile Defense
The committee is concerned with the fiscal year 2015 budget
request for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) directed energy. The
committee is also concerned that MDA has chosen to focus the
limited funds included in the budget request for directed
energy on two technologies, which may not in fact be the most
promising technologies for multiple aspects of the missile
defense mission. While the committee supports the MDA's focus
on directed energy applications for the missile defense sensing
mission, it does not believe it is appropriate to focus only on
those applications.
The committee is aware of the progress being made by the
U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy with testing, including field
testing, of directed energy systems to destroy threats. The
committee is also aware of cutting-edge work being done
elsewhere in the Department of Defense. The committee notes
that MDA pursued development of a megawatt class laser and had
a successful test against a ballistic missile threat, though
the program experienced technical challenges and delays. MDA
has largely abandoned near-term development of its non-sensing
directed energy efforts.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in
cooperation with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering and the Director, Missile Defense
Agency, to provide a roadmap to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than January 15, 2015, covering the
development and deployment of missile defense technologies
dealing with the destruction of threat ballistic missiles.
E4-B and Assessments on Nuclear Command and Control
In a January 2014 report to Congress required by the
committee's report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the Air Force
described the history and way ahead for sustainment of the E4-B
fleet. The report described several abortive attempts to
initiate a replacement program for the aging E4-B fleet, as
well as the increasingly difficult and costly efforts to
sustain and recapitalize E4-B systems. Plans for replacement of
the E4-B have been delayed largely because of uncertainty in
future concepts of operations (CONOPs) for nuclear command,
control, and communications (NC3) National Military Command
System (NMCS) airborne fleets. The January 2014 report
describes several efforts underway, and scheduled for
completion by late-summer 2014, that are examining and defining
NC3 requirements, architectures, and CONOPs. The committee
believes these efforts must be completed expeditiously to
inform critical decisions regarding the nation's NC3 system,
including potential replacement of the E4-B system.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to submit to the congressional defense
committees by November 15, 2014, the reports resulting from the
ongoing capabilities-based assessment of the nuclear command
and control system and the mission area analysis of the NC3
NMCS airborne fleet.
Encrypted Key Delivery
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
developing a system called the Key Management Infrastructure
(KMI) which is designed to provide secure and interoperable
cryptographic key generation, distribution, and management
capabilities. When fully deployed, KMI will provide a means for
the secure ordering, generation, production, distribution,
management, and auditing of cryptographic products, and will
replace the legacy Electronic Key Management System.
The committee also understands that the National Security
Agency, which is developing KMI, is utilizing its Commercial
Communications Security Endorsement Program to look at
commercial solutions that might supplement or be integrated
into KMI. The committee encourages the Department to take
advantage of existing solutions in the private sector in order
to meet the encrypted key delivery requirements of the future.
The committee believes that such solutions can be helpful in
reducing the time, cost, and manpower used in key distribution
and rekeying operations for current systems.
Fielding of Global Positioning System Military Code
The committee fully supports investments to the Global
Positioning System (GPS) to maintain U.S. military preeminence
in positioning, navigation, and timing. In particular, the
Department of Defense is working to field the military code (M-
code), which is a capability designed to provide improved
resistance to existing and emerging threats, to include
jamming.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the
committee noted its concern that the current schedule for GPS
III spacecraft, Next Generation Operational Control System, and
the user equipment is not aligned. The committee believes that
this is still a valid concern. The committee also notes the
requirements stated in section 913 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383) requiring the Department to purchase M-code capable user
equipment during the fiscal years after fiscal year 2017.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees by March 15, 2015, on the progress the
Department is making in deploying an M-code capability. This
assessment should include current and planned investments;
whether key milestones are being met; the projected ability to
the meet the requirements in section 913 of Public Law 111-383;
and an identification of the challenges that GPS faces and
possible recommendations on how to make the program more
successful in delivering M-code capabilities.
Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests for Trident II D5 Missiles
In the fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Navy has
proposed, as a cost savings measure, a reduction in the number
of Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests (FCET) for Trident II
D5 missiles in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. While the
committee supports the Navy's efforts to find efficiencies
wherever possible, the committee cautions that such
efficiencies must not come at the expense of critical
operational testing needed to ensure the reliability of the
nuclear deterrent. The committee expects this reduction in
testing to be temporary and encourages the Navy to return to a
full FCET testing schedule in fiscal year 2017.
Geospatial Intelligence for Disadvantaged Users
The committee is aware of the stated National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency (NGA) strategic goal to provide online, on-
demand access to geospatial-intelligence knowledge. However, in
contrast to online products, the committee notes the importance
of NGA's continued support to combat forces operating in
disconnected, intermittent, and limited bandwidth operational
environments. While current programs are addressing this
requirement, a strategic plan for this area has yet to be
developed for software tools.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, in coordination with
the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer, to jointly
provide a briefing to House Committee on Armed Services by
December 1, 2014, on a joint plan to address the relevant
combat forces requirements for software tools to efficiently
and cost-effectively access national geospatial-intelligence
data in disconnected, intermittent, and/or limited bandwidth
environments.
Global Positioning System Denied Environments
The committee notes that many military assets such as
aircraft, missiles, ground vehicles, and dismounted troops rely
on the Global Positioning System (GPS) for accurate position
and time information. If GPS is unavailable, such as by
malfunction or enemy jamming action, then alternative sources
of navigation data must be available for mission completion.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to review
potential technologies to improve the military's ability to
address this challenge.
Global Positioning System Replenishment
The committee is aware of the Air Force's most recent plan
to delay the procurement and launch of Global Positioning
System (GPS) III constellation satellites. While the committee
is aware that the Air Force may have made some technical
changes to enable better power management of on-orbit
satellites, this does not affect the overall constellation
fragility as characterized by factors such as satellite age and
technical state of internal redundancy or lack thereof. The
committee is concerned with the revised Air Force plan and has
not seen any detailed analysis to support the significant
changes to the schedule.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees, by November 1, 2014, on the Global Positioning
System satellite constellation and replenishment plan. The GPS
plan should address the following:
(1) Current satellite and launch vehicle acquisition
schedule;
(2) Cost advantages and disadvantages of maintaining a
satellite and launch vehicle acquisition schedule as planned in
the fiscal year 2014 President's budget, as compared to the
current schedule;
(3) Age, design life, and technical state of all on-orbit
assets;
(4) Calculated functional availability as identified with
planned launches;
(5) Risk assessment of not meeting the required functional
availability;
(6) Options to lower the risk assessment, to include faster
replenishment of satellites;
(7) National security impact if the necessary capability is
not provided; and
(8) Risks of further schedule delays to the planned
satellite and launch schedule.
High Capacity Satellite Communications
The committee is aware of the growing satellite
communications needs of the Department of Defense. According to
the fiscal year 2013 report from the Defense Business Board
(DBB) titled, ``Taking Advantage of Opportunities for
Commercial Satellite Communications Services,'' the DBB states,
``as the demand for service increases in the future, the cost
of communications satellite services purchased by Defense
Information Systems Agency is projected to grow to $3B-$5B over
the next 15 years.''
The committee believes that the use of modern technologies,
such as high capacity communications satellites, may provide
cost-effective bandwidth options to meet the Department's
growing communications requirements. Therefore, the committee
directs the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than October 15, 2014, on the potential use of modern
technologies, such as high capacity communications satellites,
to address the Department's requirements, and whether existing
satellite communications acquisition processes and authorities
are conducive to acquiring such technologies.
Human Intelligence Training Joint Center of Excellence
The committee is aware of the Human Intelligence Training
Joint Center of Excellence at Fort Huachuca. The committee
supports this joint activity to help reduce costs, foster
better inter-service relationships, and improve the quality of
training across the services.
The committee recommends continued funding of this program
to improve interoperability and increased efficiency across the
Department of Defense.
Information Assurance Training and Certification
The committee commends the Department of Defense for its
ongoing efforts related to providing certifications to
personnel responsible for Information Assurance (IA) activities
pursuant to Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 8570, which
establishes the policy and assigns the responsibilities for
Department IA training, certification, and workforce
management. Furthermore, the committee is aware that the
Department may be looking at making adjustments to this policy
to update it with current considerations related to cyber
training standards that are in development. The committee
believes that as this policy evolves, it should leverage the
successes of DODD 8570 as the foundation for any future policy.
As the Department evolves to address its future cyber and
IA workforce training needs, the committee also understands the
importance of testing to verify skills, which raises the
effectiveness of information technology and cyber professionals
and can help identify gaps in training. The committee therefore
encourages the Department to make testing which leads to
certifications available for trainees, as needed, in order to
improve and continuously evaluate the cyber and IA workforce.
Inspector General Review of the Activities Supporting the Joint
Information Environment
The committee has been monitoring progress on the
Department of Defense's Joint Information Environment (JIE) for
several years. The committee is aware that the Department does
not consider JIE to be a program of record, but is a
coordinating framework for other programs of record in the
Department. The committee is concerned that without a strong
architectural foundation, many acquisition decisions are being
made by the military services and Department of Defense
agencies without sufficient planning and rigor to ensure that
there is transparency and competition in the process. The
committee is aware of at least one instance in which the Air
Force, despite a court ruling, failed to adhere to necessary
contracting and Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements.
The committee believes that the current process for contracting
components of the JIE lends itself to an over-reliance on sole-
source or brand-names contracts, or other decisions made for
expediency over competition.
Therefore, the committee directs the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense to review Department of Defense
noncompetitive information technology contracts to determine
whether they were properly justified as sole source, and to
provide a briefing on the results of the review to the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by
March 1, 2015. The review should look at a sample of
noncompetitive information technology contracts in fiscal years
2013-14, and review of these contracts should determine whether
the Department is overly reliant on sole-source, brand-name or
other contract types that bypass competition requirements.
Investments for Joint Information Environment Activities
As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee has been
monitoring progress on the Department of Defense's Joint
Information Environment (JIE) for several years. The committee
is aware JIE is an ambitious initiative to consolidate its
information infrastructure, but is considered a coordinating
framework for other programs of record in the Department and
not a program of record itself. However, the committee
recognizes that many existing acquisition programs influence,
or are influenced by, the architectural framework being
developed by the Department of Defense, in close coordination
with each of the military services and defense agencies.
The committee is concerned, however, that the Department
cannot readily indicate which programs are affected by the
standards and processes being developed for JIE. The committee
believes that JIE cannot be effective if the Department does
not understand the span of all programs falling under the
rubric of JIE, which will effect resourcing, development,
manpower, testing, and evaluation. Therefore, the committee
directs the Chief Information Officer of the Department of
Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 1, 2015, that identifies all of the major
funded activities within each of the military services and
defense agencies that currently contribute to JIE, as well as
the funding across the Future Years Defense Program, and an
integrated master schedule with major milestones for all of the
indicated programs.
Kestrel Eye Joint Capability Technology Demonstration
The committee fully supports the U.S. Army Space and
Missile Defense Command program called Kestrel Eye. Kestrel Eye
is a Joint Capability Technology Demonstration of a
nanosatellite-class imagery satellite that is designed for
tactical ground forces. The satellite will provide the
warfighter, in the field, a capability to directly task and
receive operational data from a space-based collection system.
The imagery intelligence will support rapid situational
awareness.
The committee is aware that this is a technology
demonstration in development and has not launched into orbit
yet. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to find
a suitable space launch opportunity to enable the Army to
complete a military utility assessment to evaluate the
operational value of this capability.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in
coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services,
within 180 days of initial operating capability, on the
military utility assessment of Kestrel Eye.
Long Range Discriminating Radar for Homeland Missile Defense
Section 235 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), directed the Director,
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to deploy a long-range
discriminating radar (LRDR) against long-range ballistic
missile threats from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
and authorized $30.0 million for that purpose.
In the budget request for fiscal year 2015, $79.5 million
was also requested for this purpose. As the MDA's fiscal year
2015 budget overview states, ``the new LRDR is a mid-course
tracking radar that will provide persistent sensor coverage and
improve discrimination capabilities against threats to the
homeland from the Pacific theater. This new radar also will
give the Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) radar more geographic
deployment flexibility for contingency and test use.''
The committee recalls that section 235 of Public Law 113-66
also requires a plan be developed for such contingency
deployment, including on the East Coast of the United States
against the potential long-range ballistic missile threat from
the Islamic Republic of Iran. The committee looks forward to
receiving this report in June 2014.
The committee supports the LRDR approach and intends to
provide careful oversight over the technology and site
selection processes for what the Future Years Defense Program
indicates will be a nearly $1.0 billion program.
The committee is aware that the National Academy of
Sciences report, ``Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense:
An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase
Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives,''
recommended one potential sensor architecture. The committee
also recalls that in a study conducted by the Director, Missile
Defense Agency in response to the committee report (H. Rept.
112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013, it was clear that employing current
technology, like the ground-based radar-prototype, could be
highly affordable and effective. The committee expects the
Director to consider these and other options.
The committee is also concerned that this necessary, $1
billion investment will be borne entirely by the Missile
Defense Agency when, it is likely that the missile defense
mission will consume very little of the LRDR's actual
operational employment. The committee understands that missile
defense will, by necessity, be the priority mission; however,
it is expected that space situational awareness and other
applications will likely be the primary operating mode.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile
Defense Agency, in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Air
Force Space Command and any other appropriate United States
government agency, to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees and the congressional intelligence
committees prior to setting the requirements for the LRDR, and
not later than January 1, 2015, detailing how those
requirements will be optimized to perform missions including
missile defense sensor coverage, space situational awareness,
and other missions of interest to the United States. The
committee believes that there is also the opportunity for cost-
sharing of the costs of such radar design and operation and
expects the report coordinated by the Director among these
agencies will include an assessment of that opportunity. The
committee is aware that the U.S. Air Force is making
significant investments in space situational awareness and
believes there exists the opportunity in this nascent MDA
acquisition effort to realize significant efficiencies for the
American taxpayer.
The committee further directs the Commander, U.S. Strategic
Command, to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than January 31, 2015, detailing the
requirement for space situational awareness coverage and how
the LRDR fits into that coverage requirement and may enable a
change in current plans to take advantage of this added
capability.
Metrics of Trust in Cybersecurity
The committee is aware of the challenges associated with
communication between the U.S. Government and commercial
industry in response to cybersecurity threats. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense to continue to research
and develop metrics of trust in dynamic adversarial and
cooperative networks including the military and commercial
industry in order to promote timely and effective cybersecurity
measures.
Military Intelligence Program and Defense Input to the National
Intelligence Program
In addition to describing responsibilities with regard to
the Military Intelligence Program, section 3038 of title 50,
United States Code, describes the Secretary of Defense's
responsibilities regarding the National Intelligence Program.
Section 3038 requires the Secretary of Defense to ``ensure that
the budgets of the elements of the intelligence community
within the Department of Defense are adequate to satisfy the
overall intelligence needs of the Department of Defense,
including the needs of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the commanders of the unified and specified commands
and, wherever such elements are performing government-wide
functions, the needs of other departments and agencies.''
Further, section 3038 requires the Secretary of Defense to
``ensure that the elements of the intelligence community within
the Department of Defense are responsive and timely with
respect to satisfying the needs of operational military
forces.'' The Secretary also has specific statutory authorities
relating to individual elements of the intelligence community
that are part of the Department of Defense.
Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI) is largely
responsible for fulfilling these statutory responsibilities on
behalf of the Secretary and plays a critical role in ensuring
that the intelligence needs of the warfighter are addressed.
Specifically, the USDI has taken the lead role in establishing
the new policy required by section 922 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to
govern the internal coordination and prioritization of
intelligence priorities of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, and the
military departments to improve identification of the
intelligence needs of the Department of Defense.
Thus, the committee directs the USDI to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees by October 1, 2014, that contains a
detailed description of how the new policy regarding Department
of Defense intelligence priorities has been integrated into
resourcing deliberations and planning for the Military
Intelligence Program, and how the new policy has been
integrated into USDI's representation of the Department of
Defense in resourcing deliberations and planning for the
National Intelligence Program.
Missile Defense Applications for Electro-Magnetic Rail Gun Technology
The committee applauds the work of the Navy and the
Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) to develop an electro-
magnetic rail gun that could be capable of use as a more
affordable air and missile defense option. The committee is
mindful that a significant body of work and technology
maturation remains to be completed before a thorough evaluation
of this technology's suitability for air and missile defense is
possible.
The committee is concerned that the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) has been largely relegated to a minor, supporting role in
the evaluation of rail gun technology thus far. The committee
is aware that MDA has been granted significant exemptions from
Department of Defense acquisition processes precisely to
empower the agency to provide for the rapid development and
fielding of cutting edge technology to defend the United
States, its allies, and deployed forces from threat ballistic
missiles. This exemption for MDA was reaffirmed in the
Ballistic Missile Defense Review of 2010. The committee notes
the value of cutting-edge and nimble development and
acquisition to satisfy air and missile defense requirements, as
well as the operational requirements of the combatant
commanders, and it hopes MDA is still capable of such
development and acquisition efforts.
The committee is also aware of the assumption of technical
authority over Integrated Air and Missile Defense by MDA; and
the committee believes this is a powerful opportunity to
synergize efforts across the Department of Defense.
The committee has been briefed by SCO and MDA on the path
ahead for evaluating rail gun technology for the air and
missile defense mission, and believes that rigorous testing is
vital to that evaluation. The committee is concerned that the
current test schedule creates the potential for progress to
stall in fiscal year 2016 if SCO funding ends for this test
program and MDA has not had sufficient test data to evaluate
the technology for development as part of the ballistic missile
defense system and inclusion in the budget request for fiscal
year 2016.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile
Defense Agency, in coordination with the Director, Strategic
Capabilities Office, to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees not later than November 15, 2014, that
details the following:
(1) An agreed upon series of test events to determine the
suitability of this technology for transfer to MDA for further
development activity, including test exit criteria that should
be met to warrant its transition;
(2) Funding required in fiscal year 2016 and future years
to undertake that test activity (beyond those funds already
provided by SCO);
(3) Opportunities to use existing MDA test events and
assets to evaluate features of a rail gun system; and
(4) Opportunities to leverage other military service
development and test activities to ensure the most cost-
effective commitment of SCO, MDA, and other Department of
Defense resources.
Mobile User Objective System
The committee supports the Department of the Navy's Mobile
User Objective System (MUOS) space program. The committee is
aware that MUOS will provide a critical communication
capability for the warfighter by enabling greater mobility,
higher data rates, and improved operational availability. Of
the eventual five satellite constellation, there are currently
two MUOS satellites on orbit which were launched in November
2012 and July 2013.
The committee is aware that MUOS has two payloads, one to
continue the legacy narrowband communications capability and
another with a modern adaptation of Wideband Code Division
Multiple Access (WCDMA) cellular technology. The committee is
concerned that the modern WCMDA payload, which represents the
primary purpose of developing a MUOS system, is unavailable for
use by the warfighter.
The committee is aware that the current Navy schedule
projects the MUOS space and ground system to be operational in
the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, but the user terminals
will not be available until 21 months later. The committee is
disappointed with this lack of synchronization in delivery of
capability to the warfighter. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by December 1, 2014, on a plan to accelerate the
fielding of the user terminals in support of the MUOS program.
Nuclear Detonation Detection System
The committee is aware of the joint Department of Defense
and Department of Energy nuclear detonation (NUDET) detection
system. The NUDET detection system is designed to detect,
locate, and report on nuclear detonations in the Earth's
atmosphere or near space in near real time. The program is
designed to support treaty monitoring, integrated tactical
warning and attack assessment, and nuclear force management.
The committee is aware that the funding for this program is
split between the Department of Defense and the Department of
Energy, which can cause challenges in program execution and
coordination. The committee notes the importance of meeting
NUDET detection system requirements as part of its plans for
its space architecture, understanding the multitude of
requirements that exist on the space architecture and the
declining budget.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary
of State, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by January 15, 2015, on the NUDET detection system.
The briefing should include identification of the requirements,
a strategic plan to address those requirements, and the cost
and schedule of the associated activities.
Operationally Responsive Space
The budget request contained no funds in PE 64857F for the
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program.
The committee continues to support the ORS program to
address urgent military operational requirements for space
support and reconstitution. Additionally, the committee is
aware of the Air Force's plan to develop ORS-5, a space
situational awareness operational demonstrator to address
rapidly evolving space threats. This satellite is being funded
with prior year appropriations and does not include funding for
a launch vehicle. The committee is aware that this satellite is
projected to be completed around fiscal year 2017.
Therefore, the committee recommends $30.0 million, an
increase of $30.0 million, in PE 64857F to continue the
Operationally Responsive Space program and to fund a
competitively procured launch vehicle for the ORS-5 mission.
Plan for Improving Cyber Situational Awareness
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
embarked on an ambitious, multiyear effort to improve its
cybersecurity posture. That process was begun in 2010 with the
establishment of United States Cyber Command, with the
responsibility as a sub-unified combatant command to plan,
coordinate, integrate, synchronize, and conduct activities to
direct the operations and defense of specified Department of
Defense information networks. It has continued with the
creation of a cyber mission force that will defend Department
of Defense networks, conduct cyber operations missions to
protect the homeland, and to support combatant commander
requirements for cyber operations support. Even the single
security architecture for the Joint Information Environment
represents a change of approach that integrates security
seamlessly into network operations.
The committee is concerned, though, that the focus of the
Department of fielding and training a cyber workforce has far
outpaced the ability of that workforce to have all of the tools
necessary to operate effectively on the network. In particular,
the committee is concerned that the tools supporting cyber
situational awareness do not provide a comprehensive, fused
common operational picture. The committee believes such tools
are vital to empower a skilled, trained and experienced
workforce to fight the network as effectively as any land, sea,
or air component commander.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of United
States Cyber Command, in coordination with the Undersecretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, to
provide a plan for improving cyber situational awareness tools
to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2015. This
plan should include the following:
(1) Development of a common, open cyber situational
awareness architecture, including the capability to rapidly
integrate new privacy and civil liberty protections into the
architecture based on changes directed by the Secretary or the
administration;
(2) Identification of current tools for providing cyber
situational awareness, as well as an assessment of gaps in
current capabilities;
(3) Assessment of new tools or processes that might be
incorporated into a cyber situational awareness architecture,
such as net flow data, host-based monitoring, anomaly
detection, audit logs and agent-based algorithms, including
identification of any potential issues related to current
privacy and civil liberties protection policy;
(4) Integration of current tools into the Joint Information
Environment single security architecture; and
(5) Assessment to testing resources, including funding and
ranges, that may be necessary in the future to support
developmental and operational testing.
Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination
The committee recognizes that advances in the understanding
and application of Object Based Production and Activity Based
Intelligence (ABI) have exposed the imperative need for making
every ounce of collected and processed intelligence readily
accessible to the all-source analyst community in formats that
are consistent, shareable, and searchable. The committee is
concerned that the military services have been largely absent
or excluded from those discussions and working groups. As the
services have a significant personnel investment in
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance processing,
exploitation, and dissemination (PED), it is of critical
importance that they remain abreast of technical advances in
shared intelligence and analytic processes. To obtain the
maximum possible value from nascent ABI analytic methodologies,
the committee believes that every PED process must deliver
accurately tagged and accessible or shareable content.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence to submit a report to the
congressional defense and the congressional intelligence
committees by May 1, 2015, on a proposed way ahead for
transforming the existing Department of Defense PED enterprise.
The report should look across all PED organizations in the
enterprise and focus on today's single source products
developed in largely single intelligence discipline
environments. The report should include a plan of action and
milestones (POA&M) laying out specific actions to be taken, by
each intelligence disciple and each collector, to evolve or
enhance today's PED processes and outputs to a condition that
directly facilitates ABI analysis. In building the POA&M, the
report should prioritize collection sources, identifying those
that can be tackled simultaneously, and highlighting any
obstacles that prevent the required PED maturation.
Provision of Finished Intelligence Products on the CAPITOL NETWORK
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to
submit a report to the congressional defense and intelligence
committees not later than October 1, 2014, on the process and
procedures for conveying finished intelligence products to the
appropriate committees via the CAPITAL NETWORK (CAPNET). The
report should specifically describe:
(1) Any Department or Department agency-specific policies
and procedures for identifying and approving finished
intelligence products to be posted to CAPNET (specifically
including the processes by which the products are reviewed or
evaluated before posting), or for removing, supplementing or
modifying such intelligence products;
(2) Any policies and procedures that may exist to
adjudicate potential disagreements about the posting or failure
to post finished intelligence to CAPNET; and
(3) Any changes to or deviations from existing practices,
policies, or procedures for identifying and approving
information to be posted to CAPNET since January 1, 2012.
Further, as this report is being prepared but before it is
conveyed to the committees, the committee directs the Secretary
to provide an interim briefing to the congressional defense and
intelligence committees on these issues.
Remote Sensing Technology Education Programs
The committee is aware of the importance of remote sensing
as a discipline to support defense intelligence missions. As
the Department of Defense increasingly focuses on operating in
non-permissive environments, and on traditional missions like
non-proliferation and counter-proliferation, the committee sees
remote sensing as a critical skill set for the defense
intelligence establishment. Additionally, with the growth of
new techniques and increasing sophistication of remote sensing
tools, the committee believes it is important to foster a
robust analytical workforce for this community that can
flexibly adapt to new missions and new technologies. The
committee encourages the Department to leverage its science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics research and
educational resources to find methods for establishing
partnerships with qualified universities to increase the
quality of remote sensing technical education in areas
including sensor systems, phenomenology, analytical techniques,
image processing, and collections strategies, to include a
variety of current and future imaging modalities. The grants
should also be aimed at increasing the number of remote sensing
students at all university levels, including undergraduate,
graduate, and post-graduate.
Report and Plan for Minuteman III Sustainment
From 2001-09, the Air Force conducted a Propulsion
Replacement Program to remanufacture solid rocket motors for
the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile system.
This high-production rate program extended the life of 601
solid rocket motors an additional 20-25 years. In 2017, ongoing
surveillance efforts will enable the Air Force to determine the
expected service life of these remanufactured rocket motors;
the first of which will likely age out between 2020-25.
Concurrently, existing Minuteman III guidance electronics are
expected to age out in the mid-2020s.
The committee notes that the Air Force is expected to
finish its analysis of alternatives (AOA) for the follow-on to
the Minuteman III in July 2014. Regardless of the outcome of
this analysis, the Air Force plans to sustain and operate the
Minuteman III system through 2030. The committee believes a
significant gap and misalignment exists between the Air Force's
stated intention to sustain Minuteman III through 2030 and the
programs required to do so. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2015,
containing the Air Force's plan and programs to sustain the
Minuteman III system through 2030 or beyond. Such report and
plan should: (1) be informed by the pending AOA; (2) assess the
feasibility, costs, and benefits of initiating a low-rate
production program for solid rocket motors, including
identification of preparatory actions should current rocket
motors begin aging out in 2020; and (3) to the extent
practicable, align guidance replacement, propulsion
replacement, and other efforts to minimize flight testing
expenses.
Report on Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex
The committee directs the Director of the Missile Defense
Agency, in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Pacific
Command and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees not later than
September 1, 2014, on the requirements and value of converting
the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex at the Pacific
Missile Range Facility from a test and evaluation center to a
permanent facility capable of continuous operations.
The report shall include the following:
(1) A description of manpower requirements associated with
staffing the facility for continuous operations.
(2) A description of the safety mitigation strategies
associated with permanent, continuous operations.
(3) A description of operational impacts at the Pacific
Missile Range Facility complex.
(4) Anticipated operations and sustainment costs.
(5) A description of operational benefits and impacts of
conversion to a permanent facility.
For the report described, the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency shall include a consideration of the following:
(1) Technical feasibility.
(2) Cost, cost effectiveness, and affordability.
(3) Schedule considerations.
(4) Capacity to respond to changes in future threat
evolution.
Report on Balance in Nuclear Weapons Program
The committee continues to believe that the National
Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) nuclear weapons
program is in the process of transitioning from a focus, in the
past two decades, on developing new tools and science-based
understanding of nuclear weapons to a focus on applying such
tools and understanding to modernize the stockpile. NNSA's
projected program plan shows that the level of effort and
funding required to support this modernization, including life
extension programs and the infrastructure needed to support
them, is considerable. The committee believes that while
continual progress in advancing science-based understanding of
the stockpile is needed to certify the stockpile in the absence
of nuclear explosive testing and respond to unforeseen
challenges, the program plan may require further rebalancing
towards engineering- and production-based efforts centered upon
life extension programs and their supporting infrastructure.
To better understand the appropriate balance in this
program, the committee directs the Commander of U.S. Strategic
Command to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by January 31, 2015, on the appropriate balance,
over approximately the next decade, between efforts within the
nuclear security enterprise to advance scientific understanding
of nuclear weapons and efforts to deliver life extension
programs and supporting infrastructure. In particular, this
report should assess and make recommendations regarding: (1)
the appropriate balance in resources, funding, and personnel;
(2) the required levels of funding and the requirements driving
programs on science, life extensions, and infrastructure; (3)
the certification challenges facing the nuclear weapons
stockpile over the next decade and the scientific advances
necessary to meet them; (4) the level of basic science research
needed to attract, retain, and challenge world-class scientists
for the nuclear security enterprise; and (5) such other matters
as the Commander determines appropriate. The committee expects
the Commander to leverage the expertise of the Commander's
Strategic Advisory Group Stockpile Assessment Team in support
of this effort. Subsequent to submission of the Commander's
report, the committee expects to receive the Administrator for
Nuclear Security's views on these matters and understand how
the Administrator intends to follow the Commander's
recommendations.
Report on International Agreements Concerning Outer Space Activities
The committee is aware that there are ongoing discussions
related to international agreements concerning outer space
activities. As noted in section 913 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239),
the committee wants to ensure that any agreements, nonbinding
or otherwise, will not have any impact on the ability of the
United States to conduct military or intelligence activities in
outer space. Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees, the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence, and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence by December 1, 2014, on any agreements currently
in discussion or being considered, the potential for impact on
any Department of Defense or intelligence activities in outer
space, and the significance of such impacts. Such report shall
be in unclassified form, with a classified portion marked annex
if necessary.
The Secretary of State may submit additional views, and
such additional views shall be submitted to the congressional
defense committees and the congressional intelligence
committees, as well as the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House and Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. Such
report shall be in unclassified form, with a classified
portion-marked annex if necessary.
Report on Reliability, Modernization and Refurbishment of the Ground-
based Midcourse Defense Segment
The committee recognizes the shift in the Administration's
missile defense policy to a priority on homeland defense as
evidenced by the March 2013 Secretary of Defense announcement,
made in response to an escalating intercontinental ballistic
missile threat, to increase the ground-based interceptor (GBI)
fleet by nearly fifty percent by 2017. The committee supports
this position; however, there is concern that the
Administration has not made a commensurate shift in funding for
the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to address
long-standing issues that have manifested themselves in flight
test failures, degraded reliability, escalating obsolescence,
and erosion of margin of capability over the threat. The
committee notes that the GMD system is approximately 10 years
old and was originally designed for a 20-year service life. The
committee supports efforts to close the gap between what it
believes is needed as necessary investment in the GMD system
and the proposed funding levels contained in the budget
request.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile
Defense Agency to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than November 1, 2014, that evaluates the
necessary resources to maintain the GMD system in future years
to achieve no less than standard industry practices for
strategically important peer systems (such as Minuteman,
Trident D5, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, and Aegis
Standard Missile-3) for fleet upgrades, reliability confidence,
obsolescence mitigation, and service-life assurance of
capabilities against a threat that is growing in quantities and
sophistication. The report should include, but not be limited
to:
(1) Action plans, schedule, and by-year budget required to
improve overall GBI fleet reliability and incorporate lessons
learned from all ground and flight test failures into the
existing fleet and in-process assets;
(2) Action plans, schedule, asset line-of-balance
allocations, and by-year budget required to conduct a robust
systems engineering approach for GBI ground testing to ensure
confidence in system reliability, capability, and long-term
sustainment. This should include robust GBI integration
testing, Stockpile Reliability, Aging and Surveillance, Highly
Accelerated Life Testing, and Highly Accelerated Stress
Screening;
(3) Action plans, schedule, and by-year budget required to
modernize and improve the GMD Ground System to ensure its
sustainability for its operational life. Areas addressed should
include technology refresh of obsolete components and
technologies, modernized electronics architectures to eliminate
single point failures and improve reliability, replacement of
Ada software with a modern supportable and sustainable
language, and fully incorporate the improved capabilities
planned in the Enhanced Kill Vehicle Re-design and the Long
Range Discrimination Radar; and
(4) By-year procurement budget requirements for various
lot-buys for the additional 14 GBIs that the Secretary of
Defense announced in March 2013, and include the associated
long-lead procurement budget requirements and timeline to
support, and impacts on the industrial base.
Report on Satellite Positioning Ground Monitoring Stations Near U.S.
Overseas Military Installations
Not later than June 30, 2015, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), to
provide to the congressional defense committees, the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives, the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, and the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, a report on global navigation
satellite system ground monitoring stations operated directly
or indirectly by the Russian Federation located near any U.S.
military installation overseas or located near allied military
installation or any other installation deemed sensitive by the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State or Director of
National Intelligence. The report shall include the name and
location of any such stations located in geographic proximity
to any U.S. military or sensitive installation located outside
continental United States; an assessment of the threat posed to
such installations; the significance of such threat; and the
plans to mitigate the impacts of covered stations. The report
should also cover any planned future locations of such Russian
Federation ground monitoring stations, to the extent that the
Secretaries or the DNI are aware. The committee understands
from public reports, that this will be a limited number of
sites. The Secretary shall submit such report in unclassified
form, with a classified annex if necessary.
Report on Strategic Submarine Command and Control in the People's
Republic of China
In its report on ``Military and Security Developments
Involving the People's Republic of China 2013,'' the Department
of Defense highlighted the ballistic missile submarine program
in the People's Republic of China, stating that China's Navy
``places a high priority on the modernization of its submarine
force. China continues the production of JIN-class nuclear-
powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). Three JIN-class
SSBNs (Type 094) are currently operational, and up to five may
enter service before China proceeds to its next generation SSBN
(Type 096) over the next decade.'' In testimony before the
committee on March 5, 2014, the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command
stated that, ``China's advance in submarine capabilities is
significant. They possess a large and increasingly capable
submarine force. China continues the production of ballistic
missile submarines. The platform will carry a new missile with
an estimated range of more than 4,000 nautical miles. This will
give the [sic] China its first credible sea-based nuclear
deterrent, probably before the end of 2014.''
The committee is concerned that China's imminent deployment
of an operational sea-based strategic deterrent is a major new
step in China's nuclear weapon program. This step further
increases the opacity of China's already opaque nuclear forces.
Of particular concern, deployment of nuclear-armed SSBNs
requires China to develop and implement new command, control,
and communications paradigms to ensure positive control of the
nuclear warheads by China's senior leaders. To better
understand this new Chinese capability and its implications,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees by November 1,
2014, on the strategic and regional implications of China's
sea-based nuclear deterrent force; China's command, control,
and communications system for such force; the implications for
the U.S. and its allies of the emergence of a Chinese sea-based
nuclear force; the contribution of China's sea-based deterrent
to China's overall nuclear doctrine and employment strategy,
including survivable second-strike capabilities; and, U.S. and
partner nation mitigation or response plans.
Requirement for Plan for Use of Highly Accelerated Life Testing and
Highly Accelerated Stress Screening
On March 4, 2014, the committee received a report from the
Director, Missile Defense Agency in response to the committee
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, concerning highly
accelerated life testing and highly accelerated stress
screening (HALT/HASS) testing of Ballistic Missile Defense
Systems and Components. The committee believes this report was
a useful review of the potential benefits and limitations of
employing this rigorous review system in addition to current
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) systems. The committee agrees with
the Director's belief that HALT/HASS testing could be useful in
certain future MDA efforts.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile
Defense Agency to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives in concurrence with
the fiscal year 2016 budget submission a plan to employ HALT/
HASS testing, as appropriate, in appropriate future MDA
programs. The committee believes these efforts should be
supervised in part by MDA and should be competitively awarded
through full and open competition.
Responses to Foreign Hypersonic Weapons Threats
The committee is concerned that the People's Republic of
China and other competitor nations pose an increasing challenge
to the United States' technology edge in such emerging areas as
hypersonic weapons. On January 9, China successfully conducted
the first flight test of a hypersonic glide vehicle. The
Russian Federation is also known to be pursuing research and
development of hypersonic capabilities. In testimony before the
committee on January 28, 2014, the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, stated that, ``[o]n
hypersonics, this is a good example of an area of technology
that is going to move forward whether we invest in it or not .
. . China is doing work in this area.''
At the same time, the committee is unaware of any
significant efforts to prepare defenses against hypersonic
weapons. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
December 31, 2014, that evaluates emerging hypersonic threats
to the United States, its allies, and its deployed forces, and
explains how the Department of Defense intends to develop and
deploy a defensive capability to counter this emerging threat.
Retirement of B83 Nuclear Gravity Bombs
The committee notes the Administration's stated goal of
retiring B83 nuclear gravity bombs in the mid-2020s, after
confidence in the safety, security, and reliability of the B61-
12 nuclear gravity bomb is established. The committee also
notes that, in June 2013 the President stated an intention,
``to seek negotiated cuts with Russia,'' favoring bilateral
negotiations rather than unilateral cuts to U.S. nuclear
forces. On March 6, 2014, the Secretary of Defense testified
before the committee that, ``there would be no unilateral
actions taken by this Administration on going below the current
levels. Those would have to all be, as we have done in every
administration, negotiated through treaties.'' At the same
hearing, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reinforced
this position, saying, ``any further reduction should be done
only through negotiations, not unilaterally.''
The committee is concerned that the proposed retirement of
the B83 would be a unilateral action by the United States, with
no reciprocal reductions by the Russian Federation. Both
Congress and the Administration have made clear that further
reductions to the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and associated
delivery vehicles should only be made in concert with Russia
pursuant to a treaty that is bilateral and verifiable. The
committee expects the Administration to ensure this is the case
prior to retirement of the B83, and that such a treaty ensures
appropriate reciprocal reductions in the nuclear stockpile of
Russia.
Revision to the Integrated Master Test Plan
The committee believes that the reliability and warfighter
confidence in the Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense
Segment, also called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
segment, could be enhanced through more frequent flight and
intercept testing.
According to the ``Plan to Increase the Rate of Ground-
Based Midcourse Defense Flight Tests'' submitted to the
congressional defense committees in October 2013 in accordance
with the requirements of section 231 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), an
increase in test cadence to three test events every 2 years
will ``require an increase in test resources and personnel.''
The committee believes such resources could increase warfighter
confidence and the reliability of the nation's operationally
deployed homeland missile defense capability if this test
cadence is feasible and efficient.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile
Defense Agency (MDA), in coordination with the Director,
Operational Test and Evaluation, to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees following the FTG-06b
intercept test, if successful, on the benefits and risks of
revising the Integrated Master Test Plan presently in force and
future submissions of the plan, to achieve GMD tests at a
frequency of not less than every nine months. The committee
also directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to include in
the budget request for fiscal year 2016 an illustration of the
funding required, if appropriate, to meet this enhanced GMD
test cadence.
Shortfalls in Headquarters Cyber Support Personnel
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has
been making great strides in establishing a robust cyber
mission capability, including increasing the number of cyber
operations personnel, organizing and training them to a joint
standard, and creating the tools and doctrine for their
employment. However, the committee is also aware that while
these cyber mission teams are being adequately resourced,
personnel reductions to headquarters elements for the military
service cyber commands are becoming a serious cause of concern.
While the Department's goal of reducing bloat in
headquarters is laudable, and an important step in increasing
the tooth-to-tail ratio for military forces, this is having an
unintended but detrimental effect for cyber forces. The
committee notes that in some cases, military service cyber
commands headquarters personnel are double- and sometime
triple-hatted, leading to even greater inefficiencies and
slower response to operational needs. These headquarters forces
are important enablers for the cyber mission forces, providing
planning, requirements, resourcing, and exercise support that
is vital at this early stage of development. The committee
encourages the Department to examine its cyber personnel needs
more comprehensively in order to ensure that the military
service cyber commands have sufficient support enablers to keep
pace with the expansion of operational forces.
Space-Based Reconnaissance
The committee believes that the Operationally Responsive
Space-1 (ORS-1) satellite has provided significant intelligence
value to the U.S. Central Command and the Army's 513th Military
Intelligence Brigade. When referring to this capability, the
513th stated ``the ability to provide timely geospatial-
intelligence (GEOINT) response to a real world mission during
execution cannot be matched.'' U.S. Central Command provided
similar feedback on the operational flexibility provided by
this space reconnaissance asset to support urgent, short-notice
requirements.
The committee is aware that ORS-1 is currently operating
well beyond its design life, and there is no follow-on program
planned. The committee would like to understand the
requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands for
use of space reconnaissance assets. Therefore, the committee
directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a
report to the congressional defense and the congressional
intelligence committees by January 15, 2015, on the feedback
from each of the commanders of the combatant commands on the
utility of space-based reconnaissance capabilities to meet
their priority intelligence requirements and their current
ability to utilize and control space-based reconnaissance to
meet those requirements.
Special Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Exploitation Program
The committee is aware that there are a number of threats
and challenges in U.S. Southern Command. The Commander of U.S.
Southern Command stated that 132 metric tons of cocaine was
seized under the command's counter-narcotics mission in fiscal
year 2013. This represents over $2.5 billion drug revenue that
would have supported transnational criminal organizations,
cartel violence in Mexico, and the continued threat of regional
destabilization.
The committee is aware of new sensor technologies that may
be able to support the Commander of Southern Command's ability
to address these challenges. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Department of Defense to examine the current
state of sensor technologies that could be used to modernize
existing systems and improve detection, tracking, targeting,
and engagement of these irregular threats as part of the
Special Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Exploitation Program.
Standard Missile 3 Block IB
The committee is concerned by the reduction in funding for
the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) program in fiscal year 2015 and
across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). After
demonstrating success in five of five intercepts in 2013 and
with a Full Rate Production decision planned for fall 2014, the
Department now has reduced programmed quantities each year to
fewer than were funded in fiscal year 2014 in Low Rate Initial
Production. The committee believes such a reduction injects
inefficiency into the production line and that inefficiency may
unnecessarily increase the per unit cost of these interceptors.
At the same time, the committee is not aware of any
diminishment in requirements by the combatant commanders for
these interceptors. The committee supports the funding
requested in the budget submission for Advanced Procurement to
support long-lead time requirements for these missiles. The
committee also supports the likely request in the fiscal year
2016 budget request for multi-year procurement authority for
these missile interceptors. The committee believes that a
successful negotiation between the Missile Defense Agency and
its contractors could drive down the per unit cost of these
interceptors and increase the available quantities to the
warfighter.
The committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than October 1, 2014, on the sufficiency of current
and programmed inventory of SM-3 missiles to meet combatant
commander requirements, the number of Requests for Forces
received from combatant commanders in 2012-13 for SM-3
interceptors, and the shortfall in interceptors in each year of
the FYDP.
Targeting Enterprise
The committee recognizes the importance of geospatial
intelligence (GEOINT) support to military operations. The
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) defines GEOINT as
the exploitation and analysis of imagery and geospatial
information that describes, assesses and visually depicts
physical features and geographically referenced activities on
the Earth. An important aspect of GEOINT operations is the
target material provided to support the common operational
picture, mission planning, precision coordinate generation, and
other analytical products. The committee believes that the
targeting mission is of critical importance, and the current
threat environment will create challenges and necessitate the
need for further review of the methods to accomplish this
mission.
Therefore, the committee directs that the Under Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the Director,
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, to provide a briefing
to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House of Representatives by May 1, 2015, on
the state of the targeting enterprise. The briefing should
include: an assessment of the current GEOINT targeting
capabilities; identification of targeteer training as well as
the current and projected number of targeteers across the
Defense Intelligence Enterprise, including NGA; and an analysis
of opportunities for improvement within the defense
intelligence community.
U.S. Transportation Command Joint Intelligence and Operations Center
The U.S. Transportation Command Joint Intelligence and
Operations Center (JIOC-TRANS) recently executed a highly
successful proof of concept associated with a new
organizational construct titled the Transportation Intelligence
Center (TIC). While the committee supports the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff delegation of authority to the TIC to
allow full exercise of appropriate intelligence coordination
activities as demonstrated in the proof of concept, the
committee requires additional information regarding why it is
necessary to engender a new organizational construct to achieve
the desired end state, particularly when manned with the same
personnel as the existing JIOC.
Therefore, the committee directs that the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the Director,
Defense Intelligence Agency, to provide a report to the
congressional defense and the congressional intelligence
committees by February 16, 2015, detailing the authorities
delegated to the TIC as part of the proof of concept and
presenting an evaluation of any obstacles to delegating those
same authorities directly to the Commander, JIOC-TRANS. The
report should identify any opportunities to apply the same
lessons and delegations across the other functional JIOCS (e.g.
U.S. Strategic Command JIOC, U.S. Cyber Command JIOC, and U.S.
Special Operations Command JIOC) to achieve improved
operational intelligence efficiency and effectiveness. Finally,
the report should explore the potential for such initiatives to
allow more efficient utilization of JIOC or Intelligence
Community manning.
University Affiliated Research Centers for the Missile Defense Agency
The committee believes the missile defense mission is
crucial to the protection of the homeland as well as allies and
deployed forces, especially as the enemy threat increases in
size and complexity. Yet, both internal and external
evaluations and assessments have indicated that the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) needs to make significant technical
advancements to create Ballistic Missile Defense System
performance that is more reliable and affordable.
The committee is aware that many agencies, including
defense agencies, have found that University Affiliated
Research Centers (UARC) have been useful for their core
research and development capabilities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile
Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than December 1, 2014, on whether expanding use of UARCs
is appropriate and useful to the Missile Defense Agency, and if
so, in what specific mission or technological areas, the
prospective costs of such cooperation (including the
safeguarding of unclassified technical information and
classified information), and a plan for relevant universities
to undertake a pilot UARC partnership, including identification
of requirements for qualification to participate, and the
completion by MDA of a public survey of university capabilities
before entering into any UARC agreement.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Space Activities
Section 1601--Department of Defense Space Security and Defense Program
This section would state the sense of Congress that
critical U.S. space systems face a growing foreign threat, that
both the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation
are developing capabilities to disrupt the use of space by the
United States during a conflict, and that a fully-developed,
multi-faceted approach is needed to deter and defeat any
adversary's acts of aggression in outer space.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees not later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act that
assesses the ability of the Department of Defense to deter and
defeat any adversary's act of aggression in outer space.
In addition, this section would direct the Secretary of
Defense, acting through the Office of Net Assessment, to
conduct a study and provide a report to the congressional
defense committees not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act of potential alternate defense and
deterrent strategies in response to the existing and projected
counterspace capabilities of China and Russia.
Section 1602--Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Notification
This section would direct the Secretary of the Air Force to
provide certain congressional committees with notification of
each change to the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)
acquisition plan and schedule as compared to the plan and
schedule included in the budget submitted by the President for
fiscal year 2015. The notification would include an
identification of the change, a national security rationale for
the change, the impact of the change on the EELV block buy
contract, the impact of the change on the opportunities for
competition for certified EELV launch providers, and the costs
or savings of the change. The notification requirement would
apply to fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017.
Section 1603--Satellite Communications Responsibilities of Executive
Agent for Space
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
revise Department of Defense directives and guidance for the
Department of Defense Executive Agent (EA) for Space, with
respect to the development of space strategies, architectures
and programs for satellite communications. This section would
require the EA to conduct strategic planning to ensure these
strategies align with Department requirements. In addition, it
would require the EA to coordinate with the necessary offices
within the Department of Defense in order to eliminate
duplication of efforts, maximize the effectiveness of efforts,
and to optimize acquisition effectiveness and efficiency for
military and commercial satellite communications. Finally, this
section would direct the EA to coordinate with the Chairman of
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to develop a process
to identify current and projected satellite communications
requirements for the Department.
Section 1604--Liquid Rocket Engine Development Program
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
Secretary of Defense should develop a next-generation liquid
rocket engine that is made in the United States, meets the
requirements of the national security space community, is
developed by not later than 2019, is developed using full and
open competition, and is available for purchase by all space
launch providers of the United States.
This section would also direct the Secretary of Defense to
develop a next-generation liquid rocket engine that enables the
effective, efficient, and expedient transition from the use of
non-allied space launch engines to a domestic alternative for
national security space launches. Of the funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act, $220.0 million would be available for
the Secretary of Defense to develop a next-generation liquid
rocket engine. The Secretary would be required to coordinate
with the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, to the extent practicable, to ensure that the
rocket engine developed meets objectives that are common to
both the national security space community and the civil space
program of the United States.
The Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator,
would be directed to deliver a report with a plan to carry out
the development of the rocket engine, including an analysis of
the benefits of using public-private partnerships, the
estimated development costs, and identification of the
requirements of the program to develop such rocket engine.
Section 1605--Pilot Program for Acquisition of Commercial Satellite
Communication Services
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to
develop and execute a pilot program to examine the feasibility
of expanding the use of working capital funds to acquire
commercial satellite communications services to meet Department
of Defense requirements. This program would terminate on
October 1, 2020. In addition, this section would limit the use
of any funds authorized for the Department's acquisition of
commercial satellite communications services to not more than
$50.0 million per year for the pilot program execution, and
only for fiscal years 2015-20. This section would also limit
the authorities of the Secretary of Defense in the execution of
the pilot program by prohibiting the use of the authorities
granted in sections 2208(k) and 2210(b) of title 10, United
States Code. Finally, this section would define goals for the
execution of the pilot program, as well as reporting
requirements for the program. This section does not constitute
authority for multi-year procurement of commercial satellite
services.
Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities
Section 1611--Assessment and Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Intelligence Activities and Programs of United States Special
Operations Command and Special Operations Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, acting
through the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low
Intensity Conflict, and the Director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, to submit an assessment to the appropriate
congressional committees on the intelligence activities and
programs of the U.S. Special Operations Forces and U.S. Special
Operations Command. This section would also limit 50 percent of
the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or
otherwise made available for fiscal year 2015 of U.S. Special
Operations Command Major Force Program-11 procurement, defense-
wide, and research, development, testing, and evaluation,
defense-wide, until such assessment is received. Further
discussion of this provision is contained in the classified
annex to this report.
Section 1612--Annual Briefing on the Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Requirements of the Combatant Commands
This section would direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate on the intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance requirements, by specific intelligence
capability type, of each of the combatant commands; for the
year preceding the year in which the briefing is provided, the
satisfaction rate of each of the combatant commands with the
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements, by
specific intelligence capability type, of such combatant
command; and a risk analysis identifying the critical gaps and
shortfalls in such requirements in relation to such
satisfaction rate.
Additionally, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence would be required to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and
the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate on short-
term, mid-term, and long-term strategies to address the
critical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
requirements of the combatant commands. The briefings should
address the role of government and commercial systems, and the
methods to meeting the requirements of the combatant commands.
These briefings would be due with the budget submission
each year, from fiscal year 2016-20.
Section 1613--One-Year Extension of Report on Imagery Intelligence and
Geospatial Information Support Provided to Regional Organizations and
Security Alliances
This section would extend the existing reporting
requirement by 1 year, regarding sharing of imagery
intelligence and geospatial information to regional
organizations and security alliances.
Section 1614--Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities Executive
Agent
This section would establish an executive agent for the
Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities (TENCAP)
program. The executive agent shall report directly to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and shall be responsible
for working with the combatant commands, military services, and
intelligence community to develop methods to increase
warfighter effectiveness through the exploitation of national
capabilities and to promote cross-domain integration of such
capabilities into military operations, training, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance activities.
This section would also require the TENCAP executive agent
to provide an annual briefing to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives for the fiscal years 2016-20 on the
investments, activities, challenges, and opportunities in
carrying out the TENCAP program.
Section 1615--Air Force Intelligence Organization
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center provides
indispensable intelligence support, and should remain
organizationally aligned to the Headquarters Air Staff with
reporting through the Vice Chief of Staff. In addition, this
section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to submit
to the congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees a strategic plan for the intelligence
organization of the Air Force, which includes maintaining the
National Air and Space Intelligence Center alignment to the
Headquarters Air Staff.
Section 1616--Prohibition on National Intelligence Program
Consolidation
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
using any of the funds authorized to be appropriated or
otherwise made available to the Department of Defense during
the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act
and ending on December 31, 2015, to execute: the separation of
the portion of the Department of Defense budget designated as
part of the National Intelligence Program from the rest of the
Department of Defense budget; the consolidation of the portion
of the Department of Defense budget designated as part of the
National Intelligence Program within the Department of Defense
budget; or the establishment of a new appropriations account or
appropriations account structure for such funds.
Subtitle C--Cyberspace-Related Matters
Section 1621--Executive Agency for Cyber Test and Training Ranges
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish an executive agent to coordinate and oversee the
management of the various cyber test and training ranges being
developed and deployed by the Department of Defense.
The committee is aware that a number of cyber ranges
currently exist, but the Department's Test and Evaluation
Strategic Plan has identified a number of capability gaps that
need to be addressed in order to provide sufficient and
adequate cyber test and training. Though there has been
significant growth of cyber personnel to fulfill critical
defensive and offensive missions for the Department, the
capacity for training in a realistic environment has not kept
pace. The committee is concerned that those challenges have not
been addressed and that the Department is unable to come to
resolution on how best to provide adequate management and
support for such capabilities. The committee believes that
designation of an executive agent for cyber test and training
ranges will be an important step in managing the current range
resources, as well as provide discipline to prevent rampant
proliferation of duplicative capabilities.
Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces
Section 1631--Preparation of Annual Budget Request Regarding Nuclear
Weapons
This section would amend section 179 of title 10, United
States Code, and add a new requirement regarding annual
transfers to the Department of Energy of Department of Defense
budget authority. Prior to making such transfers, the Secretary
of Defense must establish a memorandum of agreement with the
Secretary of Energy as to how the funds will be obligated and
expended within the Weapons Activities budget of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The committee believes
that these are Department of Defense funds and it must be
assured as to how they will be used by the Department of Energy
if the transfers are to continue.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
provide an annual certification to the congressional defense
committees that includes detailed assessments from the Nuclear
Weapons Council, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command regarding the
implementation by the NNSA of any agreements and decisions of
the Council.
Section 1632--Independent Review of the Personnel Reliability Program
of the Department of Defense and the Human Reliability Program of the
Department of Energy
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Energy to jointly seek to enter into a contract
with a federally funded research and development center to
conduct an independent review of the Personnel Reliability
Program (PRP) of the Department of Defense and the Human
Reliability Program (HRP) of the Department of Energy and
submit the report of this independent review to the
congressional defense committees by October 1, 2015. Such
review would be required to examine the costs and benefits of
each program; examples of successes and failures for each
program; the reporting and administrative requirements of each
program; the authorities and responsibilities of commanders and
managers in each program; guidance for when certain positions
must be included in each program; recommendations for making
the programs more effective, more efficient, and, to the extent
appropriate, more consistent across the departments; and such
other matters as the Secretaries determine appropriate.
Reviewing the results of investigations initiated by the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy in the wake
of security and personal integrity failures in their respective
nuclear enterprises, the committee believes that the programs
administered by each department to ensure the reliability and
fitness of personnel for nuclear-related duties must be
modernized to be more effective and more efficient. The
Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) of the Department of
Defense and the Human Reliability Program (HRP) of the
Department of Energy are key programs for mitigating threats
from insiders and for identifying and mitigating problems with
nuclear workers before it affects their duties. Concerns about
PRP and HRP have been raised in several studies over the past
decade, but until recently little action has been taken. The
committee commends the Air Force for its current review of its
PRP and encourages its effort to take carefully considered
actions to improve the program. The committee believes the
entire nuclear enterprise would benefit from a broad-based,
independent review of PRP and HRP.
The committee believes sustained attention at the senior-
most levels is necessary to overcome the leadership and
integrity problems revealed within the Air Force and the Navy
nuclear enterprise in the past year. The committee notes that
various reviews and investigations are ongoing and will
continue close oversight of the recommended reforms and their
implementation.
Section 1633--Assessment of Nuclear Weapon Secondary Requirement
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of Energy and the Commander,
U.S. Strategic Command, to assess the annual nuclear weapon
secondary production requirement needed to sustain a safe,
secure, reliable, and effective nuclear deterrent. The
Secretary of Defense would be required to submit a report on
this assessment to the congressional defense committees within
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. This
report would be in unclassified form, with a classified annex
if necessary, and would be required to include an explanation
of the rationale and assumptions that led to the current 50-to-
80 per year secondary production requirement, including the
factors considered in determining such requirement, and an
analysis of whether there are any changes to the 50-to-80 per
year secondary production requirement, including the reasons
for any such changes. The report would also be required to
include a description of how the following is affected by or
related to the secondary production requirement:
(1) The demands of stockpile modernization, including the
schedule for life extension programs;
(2) The requirement for a responsive infrastructure,
including the ability to hedge against technical failure and
geopolitical risk; and
(3) The number of secondaries held in reserve or the
inactive stockpile, and the likelihood such secondaries may be
reused.
Finally, the report would be required to include a proposed
timeframe for achieving the annual secondary production
requirement.
Section 1634--Retention of Missile Silos
This section would express the sense of Congress that
recent authorization and appropriations acts enacted by
Congress and signed by the President have promulgated a
national policy that it is in the national security interests
of the United States to retain the maximum number of land-based
strategic missile silos and their associated infrastructure to
ensure that billions of dollars in prior taxpayer investments
for such silos and infrastructure are not lost through
precipitous actions which may be budget-driven, cyclical, and
not in the long-term strategic interests of the United States.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
preserve each intercontinental ballistic missile silo that
contains a deployed missile as of the date of the enactment of
this Act in, at minimum, a warm status that enables such silo
to remain a fully functioning element of the interconnected and
redundant command and control system of the missile field and
be made fully operational with a deployed missile. This
requirement to preserve silos in a warm status would terminate
on February 5, 2021.
Section 1635--Certification on Nuclear Force Structure
This section would require that, not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commander, U.S. Strategic
Command, should jointly certify that the plan for
implementation of the New START Treaty announced on April 8,
2014, will enable the United States to meet its obligations
under such treaty in a manner that ensures the nuclear forces
of the United States are capable, survivable, and balanced; and
maintain strategic stability, deterrence and extended
deterrence, and allied assurance.
Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs
Section 1641--Theater Air and Missile Defense of Allies of the United
States
This section would state the policy of the United States
that available short-range air and missile defense systems and
terminal missile defense systems of the United States with
operational missiles be rotationally deployed to central and
eastern European allies, pursuant to agreements with those
allies, as appropriate.
This section would also require that the Secretary of
Defense ensure the operational availability of the Aegis Ashore
system site in Poland not later than December 31, 2016,
pursuant to an agreement between the United States and the
Government of Poland. Additionally, this section would require
that, not later than December 31, 2014, the Secretary of
Defense, pursuant to an agreement between the United States and
the government of Poland, deploy a short-range air and missile
defense capability or terminal missile defense capability, or
both, and the personnel required to operate and maintain such a
system. Further, the Secretary of Defense would be required to
notify the appropriate congressional committees by not later
than 60 days after the date on which a member of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization makes a request of the Secretary
that they host such a system.
Section 1642--Sense of Congress on Procurement and Deployment of
Capability Enhancement II Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle
This section would state the sense of the Congress that the
Secretary of Defense should not procure an additional
capability enhancement II exoatmospheric kill vehicle for
deployment until after the date on which a successful intercept
flight test of the capability enhancement II ground-based
interceptor has occurred, unless such procurement is for test
assets or to maintain a warm line for the industrial base.
TITLE XVII--DEFENSE AUDIT ADVISORY PANEL ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
AUDITABILITY
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1701--Findings and Purposes
This section would discuss the findings of Congress leading
up to the establishment of an advisory panel on Department of
Defense audit readiness. In addition, this section would
discuss the purpose of the panel: to actively monitor the
Department of Defense's audit readiness and audit work and to
report on problems that need to be resolved with the intention
to shed light on the best, most efficient path forward to meet
the 2017 and 2019 deadlines relating to auditability.
Section 1702--Establishment of Advisory Panel on Department of Defense
Audit Readiness
This section would establish the advisory panel on
Department of Defense audit readiness, describe the process for
the selection of members to the panel, identify the period of
appointment, and describe meeting requirements of the panel.
Section 1703--Duties of the Advisory Panel
This section would define the duties of the advisory panel.
The panel would identify, review, and evaluate the work of the
Department of Defense regarding auditability. The panel would
submit to congressional defense committees semi-annual reports
on the findings and recommendations of the panel.
Section 1704--Powers of the Advisory Panel
The section would provide the authority for the advisory
panel to hold hearings and receive information directly from
the Department of Defense.
Section 1705--Advisory Panel Personnel Matters
This section would require members of the advisory panel to
serve without compensation for such service. This section would
also provide authority for travel expenses and staff to support
the advisory panel.
Section 1706--Termination of the Advisory Panel
This section would terminate the advisory panel on April
30, 2019.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
PURPOSE
Division B provides military construction, family housing,
and related authorities in support of the military departments
during fiscal year 2015. As recommended by the committee,
division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of
$6,532,970,000 for construction in support of the active
forces, Reserve Components, defense agencies, and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for
fiscal year 2015.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW
The Department of Defense requested $5,096,827,000 for
military construction, $270,085,000 for Base Closure and
Realignment (BRAC) activities, and $1,190,535,000 for family
housing for fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends
authorization of $5,276,927,000 for military construction,
$270,085,000 for BRAC activities, and $1,190,535,000 for family
housing in fiscal year 2015.
Section 2001--Short Title
This section would cite division B of this Act as the
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015.''
Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required To Be
Specified by Law
This section would ensure that the authorizations provided
in titles XXI through XXVII of this Act shall expire on October
1, 2017, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is
later.
Section 2003--Effective Date
This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV, XXV, XXVI, and XXVII of this Act shall take effect on
October 1, 2014, or the date of enactment of this Act,
whichever is later.
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $539,427,000 for Army military
construction and $429,585,000 for family housing for fiscal
year 2015. The committee recommends authorization of
$673,427,000 for military construction and $429,585,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2015.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction of funding for a project
contained in the budget request for military construction and
family housing. This reduction includes:
(1) $13.0 million for a Command and Control Facility at
Fort Shafter, Hawaii. The budget request included $96.0 million
to support the command and control requirements for U.S. Army
Pacific headquarters. While the committee supports the
requirement for this facility, the committee is concerned that
the unit cost for this facility is high compared to a standard
design even when accounting for Area Cost Factors. Accordingly,
the committee recommends $83.0 million, a reduction of $13.0
million, for this project.
In addition, the committee recommends the inclusion of
funding for several projects requested by the Department of the
Army but not contained in the budget request for military
construction and family housing. These increases include:
(1) $86.0 million for an Advance Individual Training
Barracks Complex, Phase 3, at Fort Lee, Virginia. The budget
request did not include funding to support housing requirements
for advanced individual training students. The committee notes
that this project was included on a list of critical unfunded
project requirements submitted by the Department of the Army.
Therefore, the committee recommends $86.0 million, an increase
of $86.0 million, for this project.
(2) $46.0 million for a Simulation Center at Fort Hood,
Texas. The budget request did not include funding to support a
command and control training using simulators. The committee
notes that this project was included on a list of critical
unfunded project requirements submitted by the Department of
the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends $46.0 million, an
increase of $46.0 million, for this project.
(3) $15.0 million for a Consolidated Shipping Center at
Bluegrass Army Depot, Kentucky. The budget request did not
include funding to support a consolidated, indoor shipping and
receiving center for munitions, arms, and explosives. The
committee notes that this project was included on a list of
critical unfunded project requirements submitted by the
Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends
$15.0 million, an increase of $15.0 million, for this project.
(4) $69.0 million for a High Value Detention Facility at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The budget request did not include
funding to support this complex. The committee recommends $69.0
million, an increase of $69.0 million, for this project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Army
construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2102--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year
2015.
Section 2103--Authorization of Appropriations, Army
This section would authorize appropriations for Army
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601
of division D of this Act.
Section 2104--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2004 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004 (division B of Public Law 108-136) and authorize the
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2013 Projects
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 112-239) and authorize the
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the
scope of previously authorized construction projects. This
section was included in the President's request or included as
a specific request from the Secretary of the Army.
Section 2106--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011
Project
This section would extend the authorization listed until
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the
President's request.
Section 2107--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the
President's request.
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,018,772,000 for Navy
military construction and $370,441,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends authorization of
$998,772,000 for military construction and $370,441,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2015.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustment
The committee recommends reduction of funding for a project
contained in the budget request for military construction and
family housing. This reduction includes:
(1) $20.0 million for the Center for Cyber Security Studies
Building at Annapolis, Maryland. The budget request included
$120.1 million to support the requirements for academic cyber
security programs at the U.S. Naval Academy. The committee
supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount
equivalent to the ability of the military department to execute
in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this
project, the committee believes that the Department of the Navy
has exceeded its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal
year 2015. As such, the committee recommends $100.1 million, a
reduction of $20.0 million, for this project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2202--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year
2015.
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2015.
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy
This section would authorize appropriations for Navy
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601
of division D of this Act.
Section 2205--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2012 Projects
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (division B of Public Law 112-81) and authorize the
Secretary of the Navy to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction projects. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2206--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2014 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113-66) and authorize the
Secretary of the Navy to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2207--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2011
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the
President's request.
Section 2208--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the
President's request.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $811,774,000 for Air Force
military construction and $327,747,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends authorization of
$811,774,000 for military construction and $327,747,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2015.
Items of Special Interest
Air Force Strategic Basing Process
The committee notes that the Air Force has plans to divest
legacy aircraft from its Active Duty and Reserve Component
force structure over the Future Years Defense Program. While
divesting of legacy aircraft, the Air Force will also conduct
strategic basing reviews to determine where to locate new units
and missions, such as the F-35A and the KC-46A, in the coming
years. The committee is supportive of the Air Force's strategic
basing process and believes that it provides a thorough,
consistent, and transparent process for basing decisions. When
evaluating candidate bases for new units and missions, the
committee believes that it is appropriate for the Air Force to
consider infrastructure supporting aircraft to be divested from
its force structure as being available to support new units and
missions should the scheduled divesture occur before the
scheduled arrival of the new unit or mission.
Infrastructure Deficiencies of Dining Facilities
The committee is aware of serious infrastructure
deficiencies of dining facilities at installations administered
by the Air Force. The failure or unavailability of a dining
facility would result in mission degradation, and greater risk
exists at dining facilities constructed several decades ago or
those originally intended to be temporary structures. Further,
relative to the total cost of training operations and in the
context of critical training missions, the committee believes
that replacing severely deficient dining facilities is an
appropriate, cost-effective method of preserving mission
capabilities. The committee encourages the Air Force to take
into consideration the necessity of reducing risk of mission
stoppage by investing in the replacement of dining facilities
that have infrastructure deficiencies which could cause health
and safety issues.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force
construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2302--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force
This section would authorize appropriations for Air Force
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601
of division D of this Act.
Section 2303--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2008 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2301 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (division B of Public Law 110-181) and authorize the
Secretary of the Air Force to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2304--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011
Project
This section would extend the authorization listed until
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the
President's request.
Section 2305--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the
President's request.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $2,061,890,000 for defense
agency military construction and $62,662,000 for family housing
for fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends authorization of
$2,032,890,000 for military construction and $62,662,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2015.
The budget request also contained $38,715,000 for chemical
demilitarization construction. The committee recommends
authorization of $38,715,000 for chemical demilitarization
construction for fiscal year 2015.
Items of Special Interest
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction of funding for several
projects contained in the budget request for military
construction and family housing. These reductions include:
(1) $70.0 million for the Medical Center Replacement,
Increment 4 at Rhine Ordnance Barracks, Germany. The budget
request included $259.695 million to support the replacement of
an aging medical center that provides medical services to
beneficiaries throughout U.S. European Command, as well as
contingency casualty evacuation support for military personnel
deployed in various combatant command areas of responsibility.
The committee supports the authorization of appropriations in
an amount equivalent to the ability of the military department
to execute in the year of the authorization for appropriations.
For this project, the committee believes that the Department of
Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the funding in
fiscal year 2015. As such, the committee recommends $189.695
million, a reduction of $70.0 million, for this project.
(2) $20.0 million for planning and design activities at
various worldwide locations. The budget request included
$142.240 million to support the planning and design of projects
in the construction program of various defense agencies. The
committee supports authorizing appropriations for planning and
design in an amount that supports military construction
activities projected in the Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP). For this request, the committee believes that the
Department of Defense's budget request for planning and design
exceeds the requirement necessary to support the construction
program for the FYDP submitted for fiscal years 2015 through
2019. As such, the committee recommends $122.24 million, a
reduction of $20.0 million, for planning and design.
(3) $9.0 million for contingency construction at various
worldwide locations. The budget request included $9.0 million
to support contingency construction requirements not previously
authorized by law. The committee notes that the Department has
not requested a military construction project using funds from
this account since 2008. In addition, the committee notes that
unobligated balances remain available in the military
construction account and other authorities exist to construct
projects that are in keeping with a national security interest.
As such, the committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $9.0
million, for this program.
In addition, the committee recommends an increase of
funding for projects contained in the budget request for
military construction and family housing. These increases
include:
(1) $70.0 million for the Hospital Replacement, Increment 6
at Fort Bliss, Texas. The budget request includes $131.5
million to support the replacement of a hospital that provides
inpatient and outpatient care to the beneficiary population at
Fort Bliss. The committee supports the authorization of
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes
that the Department of Defense's request is below the amount
required in fiscal year 2015 to support the construction
project's scope and schedule without putting the project at
risk. As such, the committee recommends $201.5 million, and
increase of $70.0 million, for this project.
(2) $20.0 million for Missile Defense Agency Military
Construction Planning and Design activities for a CONUS
Interceptor Site for homeland missile defense. The committee
recommends $20.0 million, an increase of $20.0 million, for
this project.
Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility
The committee notes that in January 2014, approximately
27,000 gallons of fuel leaked from a tank in the Red Hill
underground fuel storage facility. The underground storage
facility was constructed in the early 1940s and contains 20
fuel tanks that are buried beneath 100 feet of volcanic rock.
The committee further notes that the budget request
included $52.9 million in investments to replace two fuel tanks
and upgrade the fire suppression and ventilation system
supporting the Red Hill underground fuel storage facility. The
committee believes that the Red Hill facility will continue to
play an important supporting role for the U.S. rebalance to the
Asia-Pacific region. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than October 1, 2014, on
the long-term infrastructure improvements that may be necessary
to support the continued safe and secure operation of the Red
Hill underground fuel storage facility.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized defense
agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2402--Authorized Energy Conservation Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out energy conservation projects at the amounts
authorized for each project at a specific location valued at a
cost greater than $2.0 million. This section would also
authorize the sum total of projects across various locations,
each project of which is less than $2.0 million. This section
would also preclude the ability to set-aside operation and
maintenance facilities restoration and modernization funds for
the exclusive purpose of funding energy projects. It would
require installation energy projects to compete in the normal
process of determining installation requirements.
Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies
This section would authorize appropriations for defense
agencies' military construction at the levels identified in
section 4601 of division D of this Act.
Section 2404--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2011
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the
President's request.
Section 2405--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the
President's request.
Section 2406--Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry Out Certain
Fiscal Year 2015 Projects Pending Submission of Required Reports
This section would restrict the obligation of funds to
support human performance center initiatives at certain
locations, until the Secretary of Defense submits a report on
this program that was required in the Joint Explanatory
Statement to Accompany the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014, as printed in the Congressional Record on
December 12, 2013 (page H7956), and a report on the review of
Department of Defense efforts regarding the prevention of
suicide among members of United States Special Operations
Forces and their dependents required elsewhere in this Act.
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations
Section 2411--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical
Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide
This section would authorize appropriations for chemical
demilitarization construction at the levels identified in
section 4601 of division D of this Act.
Section 2412--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2000 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000 (division B of Public Law 107-107), as amended, and
authorize the Secretary of Defense to make certain
modifications to the scope of a previously authorized
construction project. This section was included in the
President's request.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $199,700,000 for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP)
for fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends authorization of
$199,700,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2015.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of
the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this Act
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for
construction previously financed by the United States.
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO
This section would authorize appropriations for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program at the
levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $426,549,000 for military
construction of National Guard and Reserve facilities for
fiscal year 2015. The committee recommends authorization of
$521,649,000 for military construction for fiscal year 2015.
Items of Special Interest
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends the inclusion of funding for
several projects requested by the Department of the Army but
not contained in the budget request for military construction
and family housing. These increases include:
(1) $26.0 million for an Army Reserve Center at Arlington
Heights, Illinois. The budget request did not include funding
to support a reserve center for Army Reserve units. The
committee notes that this project was included on a list of
critical unfunded project requirements submitted by the
Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends
$26.0 million, an increase of $26.0 million, for this project.
(2) $25.0 million for an Army Reserve Center, Phase II, at
Riverside, California. The budget request did not include
funding to support a reserve center for Army Reserve units. The
committee notes that this project was included on a list of
critical unfunded project requirements submitted by the
Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends
$25.0 million, an increase of $25.0 million, for this project.
(3) $19.0 million for Enlisted Barracks and Transit
Training at the Yakima Training Center, Washington. The budget
request did not include funding to support the requirements of
the Washington Army National Guard's Regional Training
Institute. The committee notes that this project was included
on a list of critical unfunded project requirements submitted
by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee
recommends $19.0 million, an increase of $19.0 million, for
this project.
(4) $10.8 million for a National Guard Vehicle Maintenance
Shop at Dagsboro, Delaware. The budget request did not include
funding to support vehicle maintenance shop requirements for
the Delaware Army National Guard. The committee notes that this
project was included on a list of critical unfunded project
requirements submitted by the Department of the Army.
Therefore, the committee recommends $10.8 million, an increase
of $10.8 million, for this project.
(5) $9.3 million for an Army Reserve Center and Land at
Starkville, Mississippi. The budget request did not include
funding to support a reserve center and land acquisition for
Army Reserve units. The committee notes that this project was
included on a list of critical unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the
committee recommends $9.3 million, an increase of $9.3 million,
for this project.
(6) $5.0 million for a National Guard Readiness Center
Addition/Alternation at Alamogordo, New Mexico. The budget
request did not include funding to support additions/
alterations required to address facility shortages and
inadequacies at a readiness center. The committee notes that
this project was included on a list of critical unfunded
project requirements submitted by the Department of the Army.
Therefore, the committee recommends $5.0 million, an increase
of $5.0 million, for this project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations
Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Army
National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Army
Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
Construction and Land Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Navy
Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction projects for
fiscal year 2015. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in
this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific
projects authorized at each location.
Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Air
National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force
Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2015. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and
Reserve
This section would authorize appropriations for the
National Guard and Reserve military construction at the levels
identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Section 2611--Modification and Extension of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Projects
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2602 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (division B of Public Law 112-81) and authorize the
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This
section would also extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2018, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2019, whichever is later. This section was included in the
President's request.
Section 2612--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2013 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2601 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 112-293) and authorize the
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2613--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2011
Project
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2015, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2016, whichever is later. This section was included in the
President's request.
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $270,085,000 for activities
related to Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities. The
committee recommends authorization of $270,085,000 for BRAC
activities.
Items of Special Interest
Base Closure and Realignment Disposal Assessment
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
requested authority to conduct another round of defense base
closures and realignment (BRAC) in 2017. BRAC is often cited as
a means of saving significant defense dollars in a time of
declining budgets. The committee is concerned that efficiencies
associated with the BRAC process are offset with the inability
to quickly dispose of excess property and the potential lack of
overall savings to the federal government. For example, there
are numerous instances where the Department of Defense conveyed
excess property to other Federal agencies and the overall
Government may not have saved money.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2015, as to the overall effectiveness of the property
disposal process. The report should specifically assess each
prior BRAC round (1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005), by
military department, and provide the following:
(1) A listing, by acre, of property disposed to: other
Federal agencies; state and local agencies; non-profit
entities; and the private sector;
(2) A list of remaining acreage to be disposed;
(3) An assessment of land sale revenues realized from prior
property disposal actions;
(4) An assessment of environmental expenditures and
caretaker services expended; and
(5) An assessment of remaining environmental remediation
costs to complete and associated caretaker services anticipated
during the environmental remediation.
Joint Base Closure and Realignment Recommendations
At the request of the committee, the Government
Accountability Office has issued reports on the status of
Department of Defense's joint basing initiative. However, the
committee remains concerned that efforts to implement Base
Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 2005 recommendations that
required the military services to merge or consolidate
functions to become more joint were not effectively
implemented, obviating certain cost saving opportunities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 2015, on the status of Department of
Defense actions to implement its BRAC 2005 recommendations that
meet these goals of reducing infrastructure and promoting
``jointness.'' The report should address the following
questions:
(1) To what extent has the Department of Defense identified
benefits, cost savings, and/or cost avoidances resulting from
implementing these recommendations?
(2) To what extent has the Department achieved enhancements
to joint operations from establishment of joint centers of
excellence or joint training activities or achieved other
operational efficiencies from such consolidations?
(3) What challenges has the Department experienced in
implementing these initiatives and to what extent has the
Department of Defense resolved these challenges?
Property Disposal Methods
The committee seeks a greater understanding of the
Department of Defense's implementation of homeless assistance,
pursuant to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (Public
Law 100-77), via property disposal actions that the Department
of Defense completes through the Base Realignment and Closure
Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), as amended. Therefore, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2015, on the findings of a review of the effectiveness
of implementation of the relevant statutory provisions by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department
of Defense.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization Of Appropriations
Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and
Closure Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base Closure
Account
This section would authorize appropriations for ongoing
activities that are required to implement the decision of Base
Realignment and Closure activities at the levels identified in
section 4601 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Prohibition On Additional BRAC Round
Section 2711--Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) Round
This section would affirm congressional intent to reject
the budget request to authorize another Base Realignment and
Closure round in 2017.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 2721--Force-Structure Plans and Infrastructure Inventory and
Assessment of Infrastructure Necessary To Support the Force Structure
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report as part of the budget justification documents
submitted to Congress in support of the President's budget for
the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2016 that details (1)
a 20-year force structure plan, and (2) a comprehensive
inventory of worldwide infrastructure. The report shall also
compare these two items to determine categories of excess in
the Department of Defense infrastructure. The Secretary of
Defense shall also certify whether the need exists for the
closure or realignment of additional military installations and
whether the Secretary anticipates that each Base Closure and
Realignment recommendation would result in annual net savings
for each of the military departments within 6 years after the
initiation of the additional round of closures and
realignments.
This section would also require that within 60 days of
submission of the Secretary of Defense report, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall evaluate the accuracy and
analytical sufficiency of the plan and inventory.
Section 2722--Modification of Property Disposal Procedures Under Base
Realignment and Closure Process
This section would authorize the local government, in whose
jurisdiction the military installation is wholly located, to be
recognized as the local reuse authority for purposes of
managing Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) reuse planning.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees as to
excess BRAC property that has not been declared surplus by the
Federal Government.
Section 2723--Final Settlement of Claims Regarding Caretaker Agreement
for Former Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
This section would limit any further claim adjudication
associated with a caretaker agreement between the City of
Ogden, Utah, the Ogden Local Redevelopment Authority, and the
Department of the Army. This limitation would be conditioned on
a release of claims against the United States by the City of
Ogden and the Ogden Local Redevelopment Authority.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Army Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment
The committee notes that the Army has used a stationing
strategy, called Army 2020, to analyze the various options
available to the Secretary of the Army to implement a reduction
in force structure. The Army 2020 process used key inputs
including a Programmatic Environmental Assessment, a military
value analysis, community listening sessions, and an analysis
of other stationing factors. Additionally, military judgment,
utilizing a variety of planning and steering committees was
incorporated into the final decision to reduce specific Brigade
Combat Teams (BCTs). As a result of the Army 2020 process, the
Army inactivated 12 BCTs and reorganized the remaining BCTs by
adding a third maneuver battalion to armor and infantry
brigades located in the continental United States. On February
6, 2014, the Army announced plans to implement a Supplemental
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (SPEA), to analyze the
reduction of the Active Component below 490,000 soldiers.
However, the Army is proceeding with the SPEA before fully
implementing the results of Army 2020.
The committee believes it is appropriate for the Secretary
of the Army to use the results of the Army 2020 analysis as the
baseline input of the SPEA. Therefore, concurrent with the
release of the draft SPEA, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Army to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by
September 1, 2014, on the baseline for the SPEA and any
deviation from the Army 2020 analysis. If the Secretary is
compelled to deviate from the Army 2020 analysis, the Secretary
should provide the committee an explanation of why such
deviation is appropriate.
Cyber and Electromagnetic Open-Air Test Ranges
The committee believes that the Department of Defense needs
to maintain robust test range capabilities to meet current and
emerging cyber and electromagnetic requirements. The committee
believes that maintaining the ability to support testing,
evaluation, and simulation of cyber and electromagnetic
capabilities and threats in an open-air environment with
limited spectrum encroachment is important to U.S. national
security interests. As such, the committee believes that the
Department of Defense should continue to ensure that test
ranges have modern facilities, instruments, equipment, as well
as sufficient funds to support its mission. In addition, the
Department should take appropriate actions to mitigate
encroachment or other threats that may reduce the capacity or
capability to conduct necessary testing missions to ensure a
modern military.
Deployment of Secure Work Environments
The committee is aware of the increasing importance of
protecting valuable intellectual property and sensitive
information, especially during this current cyber environment.
The committee notes that data loss prevention is critical for
the long-term sustainment of most military operations,
personnel protection, and troop movements, particularly when
information needs to be discussed in locations outside of a
fully protected Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility
(SCIF).
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to
establish an agency-wide strategy to create secure work
environments where unclassified but sensitive information can
be shared utilizing technological advances in full spectrum
Radio Frequency (RF) monitoring and commercial off the shelf
solutions for film protected glass that protects from data loss
and intrusion. In addition, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 2015, that: (1) details a programmatic
plan to provide additional protection from RF and Infrared (IR)
for non-SCIF facilities that would be impacted by potential
intrusions; and (2) an assessment of the Unified Facilities
Guide specifications that are used to provide RF and IR
protections.
Facilities Modernization Model
The committee notes that the Department of Defense's real
property management process requires extensive oversight to
maintain more than $850.0 billion in infrastructure at an
annual cost of nearly $60.0 billion. As part of its overall
effort to maintain facilities, the Department of Defense is
required to modernize certain facilities to make sure that they
meet current standards. To assist in this process, the
Department of Defense developed its Facilities Modernization
Model which predicts the average annual dollar amount required
for the Department to modernize its inventory of facilities on
an ongoing basis.
The Facilities Modernization Model parallels the Facilities
Sustainment Model. In 2008, the Government Accountability
Office reported that although the sustainment model provides a
consistent and reasonable framework for preparing estimates of
the Department of Defense's facility sustainment funding
requirements, there were issues with some of the model's key
inputs, affecting the reliability of the model's estimates. As
the Modernization Model should always be used in conjunction
with the Facilities Sustainment Model, the committee is
concerned that similar issues may affect the reliability of the
Facilities Modernization Model's estimates. Therefore, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2015, on the Facilities Modernization Model to include
the following:
(1) What are the main inputs into the Facilities
Modernization Model and to what extent have the Department and
the military services validated these inputs?
(2) To what extent are the services funding facility
modernization at levels determined by the model; how are
decisions made to deviate from the models? recommendations if
needed; and what is the impact if modernization funding is not
provided at the recommended levels?
Family Housing at Camp Humphreys, Korea
The committee supports the Yongsan Relocation Plan agreed
to by the United States and the Republic of Korea to relocate
United States military forces from Seoul, Korea to Camp
Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, Korea. The committee notes that while
the majority of the relocation costs will be paid by the
Republic of Korea, the Department of the Army is responsible
for the acquisition of military family housing at Camp
Humphreys that meets U.S. standards for acceptable size,
condition, and quality of construction to support command
sponsored families that will be stationed there.
The committee notes that the Commander, United States
Forces, Korea has indicated a requirement for 40 percent of
command-sponsored families to reside on Camp Humphreys based on
operational needs to enhance readiness. He also testified that
additional family housing at Camp Humphreys is required
starting in 2016.
In 2008, the committee notes that the Department of the
Army competitively solicited and agreed to terms with a private
partner to construct and operate family housing units on Camp
Humphreys. The goal of this project was to use private
financing to construct military family housing on-post at Camp
Humphreys. This acquisition method was preferred by the
Department over a significant investment in military
construction, which was unsupportable given the limited amounts
available in military family housing construction accounts and
other operational priorities in the Army.
The committee is mindful that the Army conducted a family
housing forum in Korea in March 2014. This forum confirmed that
without some combination of a higher Overseas Housing Allowance
and occupancy guarantees little new construction of American
style family housing units is likely to be built in the area
around Camp Humphreys. The committee is concerned that housing
in the Pyeongtaek, Korea area does not afford military members
and their families adequate housing, meeting quality and force
protection standards without significant out-of-pocket
expenses. The committee believes that privatized housing may be
a solution for the pending family housing shortage at Camp
Humphreys.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to prepare a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2015, a detailed description of the factors and
assessment used to determine the adequacy of an off-base
housing unit in the Pyeongtaek area and an assessment of the
progress and milestones for the acquisition of adequate housing
for military members and their families.
High Performance Facades for Department of Defense Installations
The committee is aware of a new blast protection technology
that has been developed which utilizes high performance
materials through a secondary facade structure to provide
increased blast and ballistic protection to Department of
Defense buildings, bases, and installations. The committee
notes that such secondary facades could provide the Department
increased flexibility and cost-savings in certain situations
where relocation is being considered. The committee also notes
that secondary facades could be more useful for retrofitting
and upgrading existing buildings, as well as being incorporated
into the architectural designs of new buildings. Therefore, the
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2014, on
recent efforts to utilize and test high performance materials
as a secondary facade structure and any modifications to the
Unified Facility Guide Specifications that would be necessary
to incorporate the assessment of this technology.
Innovative Building Materials and Design Techniques
The committee notes that in March 2013, the Department of
Defense released Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-02,
High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements. UFC 1-
200-02 defines the minimum requirements for planning, design
and construction, renovation, repair, maintenance and
operations, and equipment installation in new and existing
facilities. In a policy memorandum issued in November 2013,
military components were authorized to pursue greater energy
and water efficiency if such initiatives are shown to reduce
total ownership cost of the facility, or preserve or increase
mission effectiveness in the face of projected resource
scarcity.
The committee recognizes that innovative technologies have
expanded the availability of materials with lower embodied
energy for facilities that require tall walls and large open
spaces with minimal intermediate supports. In addition, design
techniques such as advanced framing contribute to lower
material costs, increased energy efficiency, and reduced waste
in facilities. Therefore, the committee encourages the
Department of Defense to incorporate the use of innovative
materials and design techniques that support the requirements
of UFC 1-200-02 and the goals of achieving greater efficiency
and lower environmental impacts at a lower material cost.
Joint Land Use Study
The committee notes that military installations are often
the economic engines that underpin and drive local economies.
Direct expenditures of defense dollars in the form of payrolls
and local procurement contracts generate in turn secondary
expenditures that help support local economies. Military
installations can also affect adjacent communities in several
ways, some positive (as with the economic impacts) and some
negative. Negative impacts may include noise, safety concerns,
smoke, dust, and other effects from training and military
operations. In some instances, the military attempts to
moderate these negative effects through the Joint Land Use
Program.
The committee is aware of certain noise and encroachment
concerns around the U.S. Air Force Academy, Peterson Air Force
Base and Fort Carson, Colorado. The committee believes that a
Joint Land Use Study of the surrounding area would be effective
to help offset these negative consequences. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide notice to
the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2015, of the
Joint Land Used Studies that the Secretary has programmed and a
schedule for when the area supporting the U.S. Air Force
Academy, Peterson Air Force Base and Fort Carson are expected
to begin a Joint Land Use Study.
Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization
The committee notes that the infrastructure supporting
Lincoln Laboratory's facilities at Hanscom Air Force Base,
Massachusetts, are in need of recapitalization in order to
support its mission. The committee is aware that the Air Force,
in coordination with Lincoln Laboratory, has developed an
Enhanced Use Lease proposal using existing authorities under
section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, which has been
approved by the Department of Defense and is under review by
the Office of Management and Budget. The Enhanced Use Lease
will allow Massachusetts Institute of Technology to carry out
improvements and modernization of the Lincoln Laboratory
complex at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, at no cost to
the U.S. Government. The modernization effort will replace the
aging compound semiconductor and microelectronics integration
facilities and the engineering and prototyping facilities with
two modern, energy efficient buildings. The committee supports
the plans to keep Lincoln Laboratory on the cutting edge of
technology and enable it to continue to confront the Nation's
most complex technological challenges.
Performance-Based Standards for Building System Components
The Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) provide
guidance for the design and construction of facilities and the
acquisition of building system components by the Department of
Defense. The committee notes the limited resources available to
the Department for the construction and maintenance of
facilities. The committee further recognizes the consistent
implementation of the Department's construction specifications
is critical to acquiring high performing and life-cycle cost-
effective assets. The committee is aware of recent instances of
military construction projects in which deviations from the
construction specifications occurred. The committee reminds the
Department that the use of UFGS are mandatory and encourages
the Secretary of Defense to ensure that those specifications
are consistently applied in construction and renovation.
Public-Private Family Housing on Guam
The committee recognizes that the Department of the Navy
recently released a draft supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement regarding the development of a main cantonment area
and firing range for U.S. Marines realigning from Okinawa,
Japan, to Guam. Further, the committee recognizes that the
Distributed Laydown differs significantly from previous
realignment plans, as it depends on a more heavily rotational
force on Guam than a permanent headquarters presence. Under the
renegotiated agreement with the Government of Japan to support
the Distributed Laydown, the committee understands that the
Government of Japan will no longer provide nearly $3.0 billion
in special purpose entity (SPE) funds. According to plans and
briefings from the Department, a SPE is essentially a public-
private venture (PPV) for military family housing and certain
utility improvements.
Despite the changes to the plans for the realignment of
U.S. Marines, the committee recognizes that additional military
forces are also realigning to Guam as part of the Asia-Pacific
rebalance. In particular, the Navy announced the stationing of
a fourth Los Angeles class fast-attack submarine in Guam, and
the Air Force continues a Red Horse and Contingency Response
Group beddown at Andersen Air Force Base. These additional
forces, along with other potential military personnel
increases, will challenge the current inventory of military
family housing on Guam. The committee has been supportive of
PPV endeavors in other U.S. locations and recognizes the
potential long-term cost savings coupled with improvements to
quality of life matters for service members and their families.
As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees by
April 1, 2015, on the feasibility of utilizing public-private
housing ventures on Guam and any factors that might inhibit
establishment of such a public-private housing venture. The
report should also assess the current backlog and projected
backlog in the Future Years Defense Program as to shortfalls in
family housing, by service, and the measures that the Secretary
has programmed to address these shortfalls.
Real Property Management
The committee is concerned about the Department of
Defense's management of real property resources. In an era of
declining resources, the committee is concerned by decisions
made by the Department of Defense to retain underutilized real
property. The committee is supportive of real property
authorities that provide the Secretary concerned the authority
to outlease non-excess properties, but believes that there are
instances where the Department has not fully utilized these
authorities to manage its real property assets. For example,
the committee notes that the Secretary of the Air Force is
responsible for Keesler Air Force Base and certain
noncontiguous properties in the area. A former base housing
area called Harrison Court was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina
and the 40 acre parcel remains vacant 9 years since Hurricane
Katrina. The committee notes that the Air Force continues to
expend funds to maintain the vacant property while the local
community expresses interest in developing the property for
economic or public use purposes. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to assess the value of
certain noncontiguous properties in the Keesler Air Force Base
area and to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 2015, that determines whether there
remains a continued requirement for the Air Force to maintain
these properties, the feasibility of an enhanced use lease, or
the Secretary's intent to initiate excess proceeding for these
properties.
Report on Circumvention of Military Construction Laws
The committee is aware of certain construction projects
that were awarded without a specific authorization from
Congress and in apparent contravention to section 2802 of title
10, Unites States Code. The committee is concerned by the
contracting officer's and fiscal attorney's assessment to not
seek a specific military construction authorization for these
projects prior to award. The committee is further concerned
that similar construction projects may have been undertaken
within the past 5 years without a specific authorization by
Congress. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 2015, that assesses the entirety of all
construction projects carried out in the last 5 years by the
Secretary concerned without a specific authorization by
Congress. This assessment should only review construction
projects that exceed the minor military construction thresholds
established by section 2805 of title 10, United States Code.
Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective Glass Beads
As requested in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014, the committee notes that the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics submitted
the report, ``Analysis of Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective
Glass Beads'' to the congressional defense committees on April
16, 2014. In its report, the Department of Defense stated that
``Type III glass beads provide a modest increase in visibility
compared with Type I beads but this benefit is short-lived and
costly. Although the Department does not preclude the use of
Type III beads, we find Type I glass beads to be a satisfactory
and cost-effective solution for our airport pavement marking
requirements.'' The committee also notes that another report
entitled, ``Airfield Marking Durability Study'' was prepared on
March 12, 2014, by Sightline, LC, that found ``based on
reflectivity data recorded at 13 airports across the United
States, including military and commercial, Type III glass beads
provide higher levels of retro-reflectivity initially and over
time, resulting in lower maintenance costs.'' The committee
notes that the Department of Defense was likely unable to
consider the findings of the report by Sightline, LC when it
was preparing its report to the congressional defense
committees.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to assess
the Sightline, LC report and information associated with Type
III glass beads and determine whether this additional
information was incorporated into its report, ``Analysis of
Type I and Type III Retro-Reflective Glass Beads'' submitted on
April 16, 2014. If the Sightline, LC report was not considered,
the committee directs the Under Secretary to prepare an
addendum to their previous report and submit it to the
congressional defense committees by December 31, 2014, and use
the Sightline, LC report, and any other new information
available, to assess the value associated with incorporating
Type III beads into the Unified Facilities Guide
Specifications.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Section 2801--Prevention of Circumvention of Military Construction Laws
This section would amend section 2802 of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify that certain military construction
projects, land acquisitions, and defense-access roads projects
must be specifically authorized in a Military Construction
Authorization Act.
Section 2802--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Unspecified Minor
Military Construction
This section would modify section 2805 of title 10, United
States Code, by increasing the threshold associated with
operation and maintenance funding for construction purposes
from $750,000 to $1.0 million. This section would also unify
the threshold for application of unspecified minor construction
from $2.0 million to $3.0 million. Finally, this section would
authorize the Secretary concerned to make adjustments to the
general authority to match area cost factors.
Section 2803--Use of One-Step Turn-Key Contractor Selection Procedures
for Additional Facility Projects
This section would modify section 2862 of title 10, United
States Code, to expand the existing authority to use turn-key
selection procedures for military construction projects to also
include certain repair projects and facility construction
associated with authorized security assistance activities.
Section 2804--Extension of Limitation on Construction Projects in
European Command Area of Responsibility
This section would extend the prohibition previously
included in section 2809 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public
Law 113-66) on awarding a contract for any new military
construction and family housing project, with certain
exceptions, in the U.S. European Command area of responsibility
until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional
defense committees that the installations and specific military
construction requirements authorized in this Act have been
examined as part of the ongoing European Infrastructure
Consolidation Assessment, have been determined to be of an
enduring nature, and most effectively meet military
requirements at the authorized location.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Section 2811--Consultation Requirement in Connection with Department of
Defense Major Land Acquisitions
This section would require consultation by the Secretary
concerned with the chief executive officer of the state or
territory as to the location of any proposed major land
acquisition.
The committee notes that the Secretary concerned is already
required to obtain a specific military construction
authorization in accordance with section 2802 of title 10,
United States Code, and comply with National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) before any major land
acquisition can be implemented.
Section 2812--Renewals, Extensions, and Succeeding Leases for Financial
Institutions Operating on Military Installations
This section would authorize the Secretary concerned to
enter into a sole source renewal, extension or succeeding lease
for a financial institution operating on military
installations.
Section 2813--Arsenal Installation Reutilization Authority
This section would modify section 2667 of title 10, United
States Code, to provide the authorities to lease real or
personal property contained in such section to the commander of
military manufacturing arsenals or, if part of a larger
military installation, the installation commander for the
purposes of leveraging private investment at military
manufacturing arsenals through long-term facility use
contracts, property management contracts, leases, or other such
agreements. This section does not supersede authorities in
section 4544 of title 10, United States Code, and is designed
to give the commander of military manufacturing arsenals or, if
part of a larger military installation, the installation
commander, greater flexibility to utilize unused administrative
and warehouse space at military installations.
Section 2814--Deposit of Reimbursed Funds to Cover Administrative
Expenses Relating to Certain Real Property Transactions
This section would amend section 2695 of title 10, United
States Code, and would provide flexibility to ensure that
reimbursements eventually received by the military departments
are not expired at the time of reimbursement. This section
would provide for the merger of the reimbursed funds with those
in the current appropriation, fund, or account used by the
military departments for payment of administrative transaction-
related expenses. Finally, this section would authorize the
military departments to use operation and maintenance
appropriations to pay for administrative expenses needed to
complete other real property transactions.
Section 2815--Special Easement Acquisition Authority, Pacific Missile
Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
use the authority provided by section 2684a of title 10, United
States Code, to acquire from willing sellers easements and
other interests in real property in the vicinity of the Pacific
Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii.
Section 2816--National Security Considerations for Inclusion of Federal
Property on National Register of Historic Places or Designation as
National Historic Landmark under the National Historic Preservation Act
This section would prohibit the designation of Federal
property as a National Historic Landmark or for nomination to
the World Heritage List if the head of the agency managing the
Federal property objects to such inclusion or designation for
reasons of national security. This section would also authorize
the expedited removal of Federal property listed on the
National Register of Historic Places if the managing agency of
that Federal property submits a request to the Secretary of
Interior for such removal for reasons of national security.
Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military Realignment
Section 2831--Repeal or Modification of Certain Restrictions on
Realignment of Marine Corps Forces in Asia-Pacific Region
This section would amend section 2822 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66) and strike certain restrictions limiting
the movement of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa, Japan to
Guam.
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances
Section 2841--Land Conveyance, Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, La Jolla,
California
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey, without consideration, certain Department of the Navy
property to the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Association in
La Jolla, California, for public purposes.
Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Former Walter Reed Army Hospital,
District of Columbia
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, certain Army facilities at the
former Walter Reed Army Hospital to Children's Hospital for
medical research purposes.
Section 2843--Transfers of Administrative Jurisdiction, Camp Frank D.
Merrill and Lake Lanier, Georgia
This section would require the Secretary of the Army and
the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange lands located Camp
Frank D. Merrill in Dahlonega, Georgia, currently under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture,
for certain lands adjacent to Lake Lanier, Georgia, currently
under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the
Army.
Section 2844--Land Conveyance, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey, without consideration, approximately 1.2 acres of
public land to the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation
for public purposes.
Section 2845--Modification of Conditions on Land Conveyance, Joliet
Army Ammunition Plant, Illinois
This section would extend years of operations associated
with certain landfill operations at the Joliet Army Ammunition
Plant, Illinois from 23 years to 38 years.
Section 2846--Land Conveyance, Robert H. Dietz Army Reserve Center,
Kingston, New York
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, the former Robert H. Dietz Army
Reserve Center to the City of Kingston, New York, for public
purposes.
Section 2847--Exercise of Reversionary Interest, Camp Gruber, Oklahoma
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
perform a business case analysis to assess the requirements
associated with reacquiring the former Camp Gruber, Oklahoma.
If the Secretary determines that a reversion of the former Camp
Gruber is needed for national defense purposes, the Secretary
shall exercise the reversionary rights and request the Oklahoma
Department of Wildlife to reconvey Camp Gruber to the United
States. The Secretary shall then convey, without consideration,
the former Camp Gruber to the Oklahoma Military Department for
military maneuver space.
Section 2848--Land Conveyance, Hanford Site, Washington
This section would require the Secretary of the Energy to
convey two parcels of real property to the Community Reuse
Organization of the Hanford Site for fair market value by
December 31, 2014. The Secretary of the Energy may convey the
property below fair market value if the Community Reuse
Organization agrees to provide the net proceeds from the sale
or lease of the real property during a seven year period to
support economic redevelopment at the Hanford Site, Washington.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 2861--Memorial to the Victims of the Shooting Attack at the
Washington Navy Yard
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
establish a memorial at the Washington Navy Yard in the
District of Columbia. The memorial will be dedicated to the
victims of the shooting attack that occurred on September 16,
2013.
Section 2862--Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security
Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security
Studies
This section would name the Asia-Pacific Center for
Security Studies at Honolulu, Hawaii, as the ``Daniel K. Inouye
Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies'', and would make
other conforming changes.
Section 2863--Redesignation of Pohakuloa Training Area in Hawaii as the
Pohakuloa Training Center
This section would change the designation of the Pohakuloa
Training Area in Hawaii to the Pohakuloa Training Center.
Section 2864--Designation of Distinguished Flying Cross National
Memorial in Riverside, California
This section would authorize a memorial to members of the
Armed Forces who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying
Cross. The memorial is located at March Field Air Museum in
Riverside, California, and would hereby be designated as the
Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial.
Section 2865--Renaming Site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National
Historical Park, Ohio
This section would modify the name of the John W. Berry,
Sr. Wright Brothers Aviation Center, Dayton, Ohio, to the John
W. Berry, Sr. Wright Brothers National Museum, Dayton, Ohio.
Section 2866--Manhattan Project National Historical Park
This section would authorize the Secretary of Interior to
establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park as a
unit of the National Park System.
TITLE XXIX--MILITARY LAND TRANSFERS AND WITHDRAWALS TO SUPPORT
READINESS AND SECURITY
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada
Section 2901--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Naval Air
Station Fallon, Nevada
This section would transfer certain public lands adjacent
to Naval Air Station Fallon in Churchill County, Nevada, from
the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Navy.
Section 2902--Water Rights
This section would ensure that the United States does not
acquire additional water rights as a result of the transfer of
administrative jurisdiction authorized by this subtitle.
Section 2903--Withdrawal
This section would withdraw lands transferred by this
subtitle from all forms of appropriation under public land laws
so long as the land remains under the administrative
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy.
Subtitle B--Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms,
California
Section 2911--Redesignation of Johnson Valley Off-Highway Vehicle
Recreation Area, California
This section would rename the Johnson Valley Off-Highway
Vehicle Recreation Area in California, as the Johnson Valley
National Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area.
Subtitle C--Bureau of Land Management Withdrawn Military Lands
Efficiency and Savings
Section 2921--Elimination of Termination Date for Public Land
Withdrawals and Reservations Under Military Lands Withdrawal Act of
1999
This section would extend the public lands withdrawn for
military purposes listed in the Military Lands Withdrawal Act
of 1999 (title 30 of Public Law 106-65) until the Secretary of
the military department determines a military purpose does not
exist, or the Secretary of Interior permanently transfers the
administrative jurisdiction to the Secretary of the military
department concerned.
Subtitle D--Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California
Section 2931--Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Land for Naval Air
Weapons Station China Lake, California
This section would amend section 2979 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66) and permanently extend the withdrawal and
reservation of public land for Naval Air Weapons Station China
Lake, California. This section would also permanently withdraw
public lands known as Cuddeback Land Area for use by the
Secretary of the Navy.
Subtitle E--White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico
Section 2941--Additional Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Land to
Support White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico
This section would amend section 2951 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66) and extend the withdrawal and reservation
of public land of White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, to
include Federal lands located beneath the boundaries of the
Special Use Airspace designated as R-5107C and R-5107H.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OVERVIEW
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 contained $17.7
billion for atomic energy defense activities. The committee
recommends $17.4 billion, a decrease of $308.0 million to the
budget request.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
National Nuclear Security Administration
Overview
The budget request contained $11.7 billion for the programs
of the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year
2011. The committee recommends $11.8 billion, an increase of
$143.7 million to the budget request.
Weapons Activities
B61-12 and W76-1 Life Extension Programs
The budget request contained $643.0 million for the B61
Life Extension Program (LEP) and $259.2 million for the W76
LEP. The committee continues to believe that the National
Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) primary focus must be
its nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship program, and within
that broader program the deliverables directly supporting
Department of Defense requirements must be paramount.
Successfully delivering LEPs efficiently and on schedule must
be NNSA's central focus.
The committee notes the considerable progress of the B61
LEP in the past year. With development engineering well
underway, the Director of Sandia National Laboratories
testified before the Senate Committee on Armed Services on
April 9, 2014, that the design of the B61-12 bomb is 75 percent
complete and all major schedule and cost milestones established
in the program baseline, as adjusted for receipt of
appropriations, have been met. The committee is encouraged by
the progress of this critical program and believes continued
success will help NNSA rebuild lost trust with the Department
of Defense and Congress. The committee recommends $643.0
million for the B61 LEP, the amount of the budget request.
The committee also notes that NNSA completed only 74
percent of the W76-1 production build schedule in fiscal year
2013. The committee understands that a key cause of this was
uncertainty in funding and delays at the Pantex site. The
committee believes NNSA's plan to ramp up to the full, steady-
state production rate for the W76 LEP in fiscal year 2015, and
therefore meet the Navy's deliverable schedule, is at
significant risk. Therefore, the committee recommends $273.8
million for the W76 LEP, an increase of $14.6 million from the
budget request.
Deferral of the W78/88-1 Life Extension Program
The fiscal year 2015 budget request proposes to defer the
W78/88-1 Warhead Life Extension Program (LEP) by at least 5
years. This program would create an ``interoperable'' warhead
containing key components that could be used on both submarine-
launched ballistic missiles and land-based intercontinental
ballistic missiles. The National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) believes the deferral of this program
does not represent an abandonment of the Nuclear Weapons
Council's long-term ``3+2'' strategy for the nuclear weapons
stockpile, but does create a more realistic out-year funding
profile for NNSA's Weapons Activities.
The committee does not object to the proposed deferral in
principle, and is aware of the challenges to this program
related to costs, certification, and the potential need for
increased missile flight tests. However, the committee is
concerned about the implications of this deferral for the
nuclear weapons stockpile and the nuclear security enterprise.
Deferral will reduce opportunities for sustaining critical
design and development skills at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, create significant production gaps at Pantex
(coupled with the proposed deferral of the long-range standoff
weapon warhead), require a reevaluation of the overall strategy
for hedging against the risk through the non-deployed and
inactive stockpiles, and reduce the ability to leverage
development efforts between LEPs. The committee expects the
Nuclear Weapons Council to consider these impacts in the months
ahead and expects robust mitigation actions to be formulated
and carried out.
Furthermore, deferral places increased importance on
surveillance efforts related to the existing W78 warhead. The
budget request contained $62.7 million for W78 Stockpile
Systems. The committee recommends $66.4 million for W78
Stockpile Systems, an increase of $3.7 million, to support
increased surveillance.
Finally, the committee notes that section 3118 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66) remains in effect for the future and expects the
comparative analysis required by that section to be submitted
prior to the W78/88-1 LEP entering Phase 6.3 (development
engineering).
Deferred maintenance
Within Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF),
the budget request contained $205.0 million for Maintenance and
Repair of Facilities and $209.3 million for Recapitalization.
These funds are intended to slow the rate of growth in the
backlog of deferred maintenance at facilities across the
nuclear security enterprise.
Budget justification materials submitted by the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) note that NNSA's
deferred maintenance backlog is over $3.5 billion and growing.
The materials highlight that, of NNSA's approximately 3,800
facilities, almost 30 percent were built during the Manhattan
Project era and over 50 percent are more than 40 years old.
The committee agrees with NNSA that infrastructure risk, if
left unaddressed, becomes safety risk and mission risk. The
committee fears that, given NNSA's numerous high-priority
programs and the termination of the Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) in 2013,
insufficient attention and funding will be applied to the
deferred maintenance problem going forward.
To support NNSA's efforts to continue mitigating
infrastructure risks and buying down deferred maintenance, the
committee recommends $220.0 million for Maintenance and Repair
of Facilities, an increase of $15.0 million, and $248.3 million
for Recapitalization, an increase of $39.0 million. Of the
funding provided for Recapitalization, the committee expects
the Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide at least
$60.0 million to the Capabilities Based Investment program to
focus recapitalization efforts on the highest priority mission
needs.
Implementation of Center for Security Technology, Analysis, Response,
and Testing
Section 3116 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) required the Administrator
for Nuclear Security to establish a Center for Security
Technology, Analysis, Response, and Testing (CSTART). In the
wake of the security breach at the Y-12 National Security
Complex in July 2012, the CSTART was established to provide the
Administrator, the Chief of Defense Nuclear Security, and the
management and operating contractors of the nuclear security
enterprise a wide-range of objective expertise on security
technologies, systems, analysis, testing, and response forces.
To better understand the Administrator's plan for the
CSTART, the committee directs the Administrator to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September
30, 2014, on the Administrator's implementation plan for the
CSTART. Such plan should be developed in consultation with the
Department of Energy's Departmental Security Committee and
should discuss the roles, missions, functions,
responsibilities, and personnel assigned to the CSTART, as well
as actions to be taken to implement the CSTART and timelines
for such actions.
Plan for Public-Private Partnerships
The committee believes that recent experience at the Kansas
City Plant, the Y-12 National Security Complex, and elsewhere
around the nuclear security enterprise shows that public-
private partnerships can be a useful tool in quickly and
efficiently executing non-nuclear construction projects.
However, the committee notes the October 2009 report by the
Comptroller General of the United States on the Kansas City
Plant concluded that National Nuclear Security Administration
``officials acknowledge that while leasing a facility through
the General Services Administration under a 20-year scenario is
less costly than purchasing, it can be more costly over the
longer term.'' The committee also notes the value of building
new facilities through public-private partnerships, which can
enable workers to quickly relocate from decaying, antiquated
buildings to modern office and non-nuclear laboratory spaces
while also enabling a reduction in deferred maintenance
backlogs.
The committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to submit a plan to the congressional defense
committees by February 1, 2015, describing at least two public-
private partnerships the Administrator will seek to enter into
to build modern, non-nuclear facilities for the nuclear
security enterprise. This plan should discuss the benefits,
risks, costs and cost savings over the life of the facility,
timelines, and effects on the deferred maintenance backlog
associated with carrying out the projects as compared to a
program plan that does not carry out the projects.
Weapons Activities and budget prioritization
The budget request contained $8.3 billion for the Weapons
Activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA). These programs support NNSA's central mission of
ensuring and sustaining the safety, security, reliability, and
credibility of the U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile.
Within Weapons Activities, the committee continues to
believe NNSA must emphasize programs and capabilities that
directly support NNSA's deliverables to the Department of
Defense. To ensure this emphasis, the committee recommends
several adjustments to the budget request for Weapons
Activities, as reflected in the accompanying tables. In
particular, the committee recommends increases, discussed
elsewhere in this title, for several life extension programs
(LEP). Furthermore, the committee recommends $17.0 million, an
increase of $7.6 million, to accelerate NNSA's cruise missile
warhead life extension program.
The committee also recommends $166.6 million for the W88
Alt 370, an increase of $1.2 million to support the study of
options for refresh of conventional high explosives required
elsewhere in this title.
The committee recommends $363.2 million for Production
Support, an increase of $12.3 million, to support sustainment
and recapitalization of key production equipment and $212.5
million for R&D Certification and Safety, an increase of $11.0
million, to support technology maturation for LEPs and limited
life component development. The committee also recommends
$172.9 million for Plutonium Sustainment, an increase of $28.3
million, to support efforts to deliver a responsive plutonium
infrastructure as required elsewhere in this title.
The committee recommends $54.4 million for Enhanced Surety,
an increase of $2.4 million, to support continued development
of safety, security, and use-control technologies and $41.4
million for Enhanced Surveillance, an increase of $3.6 million,
to accelerate development of tools and methods for predicting
aging effects.
The committee recommends $182.4 million for Nuclear
Counterterrorism Incident Response, an increase of $9.0
million, to better support Department of Defense needs for
NNSA's nuclear expertise in support of this critical national
security mission.
Overall, the committee recommends $8.5 billion for Weapons
Activities, an increase of $147.7 million to the budget
request.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Adopting the Gold Standard for section 123 agreements
The committee continues to support agreements made in
accordance with section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(Public Law 83-703), which include ``the Gold Standard''
commitment, as exemplified by the nuclear cooperation agreement
between the United States and the United Arab Emirates. The
Gold Standard represents a binding legal restriction on uranium
enrichment and reprocessing as a condition for concluding
nuclear cooperation agreements, and it remains an important
component of effective nuclear nonproliferation leadership for
reducing longer-term nuclear proliferation risks. However, the
committee is concerned that the Administration no longer
prioritizes the inclusion of this standard as a condition for
nuclear cooperation agreements and has shifted to an ad hoc
approach.
The committee remains concerned that the Administration
does not require the Gold Standard in all new and renegotiated
123 agreements. The committee believes this weakens U.S.
nonproliferation leadership and leverage to limit the potential
spread of the knowledge, technology, and material required to
enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium. The committee notes
that enriched uranium and reprocessed spent nuclear fuel can be
used to produce significant stockpiles of fissile material for
both peaceful and military purposes. The resulting increase of
fissile material could be used by a state to make nuclear
weapons or become vulnerable to diversion or theft by
terrorists, increasing risks to international and regional
security. To preclude such scenarios and the potential increase
in the number of latent nuclear weapons states, the committee
believes the Gold Standard represents an important legally
binding commitment by a foreign country to forgo uranium
enrichment and plutonium reprocessing, and is an important
indicator of such country's commitment to nuclear
nonproliferation.
Explanation of Funding Adjustments for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
The budget request contained $1.6 billion for Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN). Of this amount, $333.5 million
was requested for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative
(GTRI), $360.8 million for Nonproliferation Research and
Development (R&D), $141.4 million for Nonproliferation and
International Security (NIS), $305.5 million for International
Material Protection and Cooperation (IMPC), and $311.1 million
for Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD).
The committee recommends $413.5 million for GTRI, an
increase of $80.0 million, to accelerate the clean-out and
security upgrades in countries other than Russia to minimize
the risk of theft of diversion of vulnerable fissile material.
The committee recommends $430.8 million for Nonproliferation
R&D, an increase of $70.0 million, and $177.8 million for NIS,
an increase of $36.4 million, to support additional
verification work, including research and development of next-
generation verification and remote sensing technology, and the
development of a national verification roadmap as recommended
in the January 2014 Defense Science Board report on Assessment
of Nuclear Monitoring and Verification Technologies.
The committee believes that no DNN funds for fiscal year
2015 should be authorized for activities with the Russian
Federation based on ongoing Russian aggression towards Ukraine.
Therefore, the committee recommends $129.1 million for IMPC, a
decrease of $176.4 million. The decrease of $176.4 million for
IMPC includes a reduction of $83.4 million for programs with
Russia and a reduction of $93.0 million for Second Line of
Defense (SLD). Also within IMPC, the committee recommends $21.5
million for SLD for mobile detection systems. The committee
questions the value of fixed detection units at major border
crossings and ports in deterring and intercepting nuclear
weapons-usable material, and believes SLD funds could be better
allocated towards mobile detection capabilities to reduce the
risk of nuclear terrorism.
Therefore, the committee recommends a total of $1.6 billion
for DNN. Of this amount, the committee recommends $413.5
million for GTRI, $430.8 million for Nonproliferation R&D,
$177.8 million for NIS, $129.1 million for IMPC, and $311.1
million for FMD.
Nuclear Security Summit 2014
The committee recognizes the importance of the 2014 Nuclear
Security Summit, which occurred in The Netherlands on March 24-
25, 2014, in bringing together the international community to
focus on and address efforts to reduce the risk of nuclear
terrorism. Such efforts have resulted in 13 countries
eliminating their stocks of nuclear weapons-grade materials.
The committee commends the Government of Japan for its
announcement at the 2014 summit that it plans to transfer more
than 700 pounds of weapons-usable plutonium and a large
quantity of highly enriched uranium to the United States for
disposition. This material is sufficient to make dozens of
nuclear weapons if stolen or diverted. The committee believes
the increased participation of foreign governments in the
summit is important, particularly to increase recognition of
the threat of nuclear terrorism and the need to secure
vulnerable nuclear material and radioactive sources, as well as
develop nuclear forensics capabilities.
The Nuclear Security Guidelines adopted at the summit are
an important step toward adopting and implementing universal
safety standards designed to secure nuclear and radioactive
material. While the committee acknowledges that 35 of the
participating nations agreed to adopt the Nuclear Security
Guidelines, the committee encourages the U.S. Government to
continue engaging with the remaining 18 participating nations
to also adopt the guidelines. The committee believes effective
prevention of the threat of nuclear terrorism requires all
nations to adopt and follow the Nuclear Security Guidelines.
Naval Reactors
Briefing on requirements and gaps for preserving the capability to
study the use of Low-Enriched Uranium for Naval Reactors
The committee notes that the report submitted in January
2014 by the Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, on the
potential of using low-enriched uranium (LEU) in place of
highly-enriched uranium (HEU) in naval nuclear propulsion
systems found that ``while it may be feasible to replace HEU
fuel with LEU fuel in current U.S. Naval reactor plants, it is
not economical or practical to do so.'' The report notes that
``substituting LEU for HEU would fundamentally decrease reactor
energy density, increase lifecycle and operating costs,
increase operational radiation exposure, and increase the
volume of radioactive wastes.''
The report also states that ``recent work has shown that
the potential exists to develop an advanced fuel system that
could increase uranium loading beyond what is practical today
while meeting the rigorous performance requirements for naval
reactors'' and that ``the capability to develop advanced naval
fuel resides within a small cadre of highly specialized,
experienced, and qualified engineers and scientists.'' The
report also notes that ``the investment to develop a fuel
technology and determine its viability is estimated to be up to
$2 billion over at least 10 to 15 years.''
The committee directs the Director, Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program, to provide a briefing to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
by March 1, 2015, on the requirements and costs to maintain the
capability to develop an advanced fuel system, including the
near-term gaps and investments in research and development that
would be required to preserve the technical capability to do so
once ongoing new design work is complete.
Naval Reactors
The budget request contained $1.4 billion for the Naval
Reactors program. Naval Reactors is responsible for all aspects
of naval nuclear propulsion efforts, including reactor plant
technology design and development, reactor plant operation and
maintenance, and reactor retirement and disposal. The program
ensures the safe and reliable operation of reactor plants in
nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers that comprise
over 40 percent of the Navy's major combatants.
The committee is concerned that, due to funding challenges,
Naval Reactors may be unable to execute key aspects of its
mission to enable the nuclear Navy. In particular, in testimony
before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on April 8, 2014,
the Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program noted that
the program delayed purchase of a high-performance computer,
``that is needed to deliver the Ohio-class Replacement reactor
design on time ... Cancelling this computer purchase in fiscal
year 2014 has resulted in at least a 6-month delay to reactor
core manufacturing, impacting the Ohio-class replacement lead-
ship construction schedule.'' The Director also noted that,
``Naval Reactors will be required to shut down one of the two
prototype reactor plants in upstate New York during the second
quarter of fiscal year 2015 due to insufficient maintenance
funding. This shutdown results in 450 sailors that will not be
trained and will not be sent to the Fleet next year.''
The committee believes that these impacts, if realized,
would be unacceptable to Navy operations. Most critically, a 6-
month delay to the Ohio-class replacement submarine jeopardizes
the Navy's ability to fulfill U.S. Strategic Command's at-sea
deterrence requirements in the 2030s. The committee notes that
the Director has stated that the full fiscal year 2015 budget
request for Naval Reactors is essential to mitigating these
impacts.
The committee recommends $1.4 billion for the Naval
Reactors program, an increase of $10.0 million the budget
request.
Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project
The budget request for Naval Reactors includes $141.1
million for the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project
(SFHP). Authorized in fiscal year 2014, this project will
replace the Expended Core Facility (ECF) in Idaho currently
used for receipt, inspection, and packaging of expended naval
nuclear reactor cores. In testimony before the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces on April 8, 2014, the Director of the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program noted that, ``The existing ECF is
more than 55 years old and the water pool that stores naval
spent nuclear fuel is the oldest pool of its type in the
nation. This old facility is showing accelerating signs of
deterioration, including leaking water pool walls and cracked
floors.''
The committee is concerned that, while it continues to be
operated in a safe and environmentally responsible manner, due
to its age and accompanying sustainment challenges, the ECF may
suffer an irreparable failure at any time. Such a failure would
have major and immediate impacts on Naval Reactors' ability to
support the Navy's nuclear reactor refueling and defueling
schedules.
Furthermore, the existing ECF is incapable of receiving and
processing full-length aircraft carrier spent nuclear fuel.
Until the new facility is built, the Navy will be required to
purchase additional M-290 shipping containers to temporarily
store this spent fuel as it is removed from aircraft carriers.
This will result in additional, unexpected costs to the Navy of
$100.0 to $150.0 million per year for each year of delay. The
committee believes the most cost-effective approach is to fully
fund the SFHP and thereby avoid forcing this unnecessary
expense on the Navy.
The committee agrees with the Director's April 8, 2014,
testimony when he said, ``To put simply, it is costing the
country more to delay this facility than it is to just get on
with building it,'' and, ``The fiscal year 2015 request for the
SFHP is essential to the operational availability of aircraft
carriers and submarines.'' Therefore, the committee recommends
$141.1 million for the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization
Project, the amount of the budget request.
Office of the Administrator
Improvements to National Nuclear Security Administration budget
structure
The committee notes the ongoing, collaborative effort
between the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA),
the White House Office of Management and Budget, and Congress
to update and streamline NNSA's budget structure to provide
better transparency, increased flexibility, and greater focus
on NNSA's mission and priorities. The committee is encouraged
by this effort and believes, if carefully considered with input
from all stakeholders, increased efficiency and agility can be
achieved for NNSA programs while also ensuring robust
transparency and accountability. The committee expects the
Administrator to consult closely with the committee as budget
structure changes are considered during the development of the
fiscal year 2016 budget request.
Reorganization and reform
In the past year, the Department of Energy and the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) have continued to make
organizational changes intended to more effectively and
efficiently manage programs (particularly large nuclear
infrastructure projects) and address chronic problems related
to security, safety, duplicative and inconsistent inspections
and policies, and confused lines of authority, responsibility,
and accountability. These reorganization efforts are expected
to continue into fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
The committee continues to be skeptical that reorganization
efforts will lead to the fundamental and lasting change
required to remedy the myriad problems with governance,
management, and oversight of the nuclear security enterprise.
The committee notes that only 2 years ago, in March 2012, NNSA
created the Office of Infrastructure and Operations (NA-00),
and in 2013 assigned this office responsibilities related to
security inspections, security operations, and security
budgets. Subsequently, in December 2013 these security
functions were removed from NA-00 and distributed among several
new and reformed offices under the Chief of Defense Nuclear
Security, the new Department of Energy Office of Independent
Enterprise Assessments, a new Departmental Security Committee,
and supporting offices under the newly created Department of
Energy Under Secretary for Management and Performance.
The committee understands that these shifts resulted from
new senior leaders at the Department of Energy and NNSA, and
recognize and appreciate that active measures are being taken
to address these longstanding problems. However, past
experiences at Department of Energy and NNSA have shown that
reorganizations initiated by time- and attention-constrained
senior leaders have had little effect on the intractable
bureaucratic culture within Department of Energy and NNSA. The
committee continues to be concerned with the long-term failure
to implement meaningful and effective changes when the problems
and possible solutions have been so thoroughly studied by so
many groups.
On the other hand, the committee is guardedly hopeful to
see Department of Energy/NNSA's security reforms include
separation of security policy and security inspection
functions, as well as clarification and simplification of lines
of authority, responsibility, and accountability.
Recommendations for these two actions have been a part of
security reviews for over a decade, and the need for their
implementation is urgent.
This summer, the committee expects to receive the final
report of the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of
the Nuclear Security Enterprise created by section 3166 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239). The committee encourages senior policymakers in
the Administration and in Congress to keep sustained and in-
depth attention on reform efforts. Strong leadership and robust
actions are required now and into the foreseeable future. The
committee will continue its oversight of these matters.
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Overview
The budget request contained $6.1 billion for environmental
and other defense activities for fiscal year 2015. The
committee recommends $5.6 billion, a decrease of $451.7 million
to the budget request.
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Environmental Management technology development program
The budget request contained $13.0 million for the
technology development program of the Office of Environmental
Management. This program provides key investments to mid- and
long-term research and development projects that seek to
develop and mature technologies to reduce cleanup costs and
accelerate cleanup schedules.
Because the defense environmental cleanup program is
expected to cost approximately $200.0 billion and last until
2070, the committee believes that the small amounts of funding
invested in this program have the potential to provide large
cost savings in the decades to come. Therefore, the committee
recommends $19.0 million for the technology development
program, an increase of $6.0 million.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
The committee remains concerned about the incidents and
contamination that occurred at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico, related to the February 2014
radiological release and underground fire, and has been closely
monitoring these events. The committee notes that WIPP remains
closed to new waste shipments as various investigations and
reviews continue to identify the source of the contamination,
the risk of additional events, and potential options to address
this issue. Those reviews that have concluded have recommended
a variety of actions to improve operations, oversight, and
emergency response at WIPP and across the Department of Energy
complex. The committee expects the Department of Energy to
seriously consider all such recommendations and take robust
action to prevent a reoccurrence of either incident.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration
This section would authorize appropriations for the
National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2015,
including funds for weapons activities, defense nuclear
nonproliferation programs, naval reactor programs, and Federal
Salaries and Expenses (formerly known as the Office of the
Administrator), at the levels identified in section 4701 of
division D of this Act. This section would also authorize
several new plant projects for the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup
This section would authorize appropriations for defense
environmental cleanup activities for fiscal year 2015, at the
levels identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act.
This section would also authorize several new plant projects
for defense environmental cleanup.
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities
This section would authorize appropriations for other
defense activities for fiscal year 2015, including funds for
Health, Safety, and Security, the Office of Legacy Management,
and Nuclear Energy, of the funds identified in section 4701 of
division D of this Act.
Section 3104--Energy Security and Assurance
This section would authorize appropriations for energy
security and assurance programs for fiscal year 2015, at the
levels identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, And Limitations
Section 3111--Design and Use of Prototypes of Nuclear Weapons for
Intelligence Purposes
Section 3115 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) established the
requirement to provide for the design and use of prototypes of
nuclear weapons to further intelligence estimates with respect
to foreign nuclear weapons activities.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the
committee noted at the time that this requirement was
consistent with the recommendations of the Bipartisan
Congressional Commission of the Strategic Posture of the United
States. The commission found that: ``A particularly sensitive
question is whether the laboratories should be permitted to do
weapons design work in support of this intelligence mission. At
issue is whether the United States should seek to improve its
understanding of the feasibility of the weapons design efforts
of others by replicating those designs in U.S. laboratories. In
the commission's view, this is possible and this work should be
permitted. At a time of rising concern about efforts by
proliferators to develop and improve their nuclear weapons, and
of nuclear terrorism, such work is indeed critical. Such work
would not involve the design of new weapons with new military
characteristics for deployment by the United States. It can and
should be done in accordance with U.S. policies not to produce
fissile materials and not to conduct nuclear explosive tests.
It would be limited to assessing whether adversarial efforts in
development of new nuclear weapons will result in operational
capabilities, and what technical, military, political, and
other consequences might follow from the potential new
capabilities. Working with partners in the intelligence
community, the laboratories should be in a position to advise
national leadership on foreign nuclear weapons activities
bearing on the interests of the United States and its allies.
In short, the commission recommends that the laboratories be
allowed to design, simulate, and experimentally assess foreign
nuclear weapon designs for the purposes of defensive
analysis.''
This section would update that requirement consistent with
the direction of the Department of Energy, National Nuclear
Security Administration that such activity implicates a broader
set of Department of Energy equities than those resident in the
Administrator of that agency.
Section 3112--Authorized Personnel Levels of National Nuclear Security
Administration
This section would amend section 3241A of the National
Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2441a) to
require that, by October 1, 2015, the total number of employees
within the Office of the Administrator may not exceed 1,650.
With the fiscal year 2015 budget request, the
Administration proposes changing the name of the ``Office of
the Administrator'' account to ``Federal Salaries and
Expenses''. This section would also clarify that, for the
purposes of section 3241A, these terms are considered the same.
The committee expects the Administrator for Nuclear Security to
follow past practice for counting the number of employees for
the purposes of section 3241A.
Section 3113--Cost Containment for Uranium Capabilities Replacement
Project
This section would express the sense of Congress that
regarding the Uranium Capabilities Replacement Project (UCRP):
(1) A series of statements and policy documents from the
Administration have identified the UCRP as a critical nuclear
modernization priority;
(2) The failure of the Department of Energy and the
National Nuclear Security Administration to successfully and
efficiently execute and oversee the UCRP undermines national
security and jeopardizes the long-term credibility of the
nuclear deterrent;
(3) The April 8, 2014, testimony of the Acting
Administrator for Nuclear Security that ``close to half'' of
the $1.2 billion taxpayers have spent on the design of such
project has been wasted is a grievous misuse of limited
taxpayer funds, and the appropriate officials of the Federal
Government and contractors must be held accountable;
(4) The uranium capabilities and modern infrastructure that
are to be provided by all three phases of the UCRP are critical
to national security and Congress fully supports efforts to
deliver all of these capabilities efficiently and
expeditiously;
(5) Focused attention and robust leadership from the
highest levels of the executive branch and Congress are
required to ensure that the UCRP delivers such critical
national security capabilities; and
(6) The Secretary and the Administrator must ensure that
lines of responsibility, authority, and accountability for the
UCRP are clear going forward.
This section would also amend section 3123 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239), as amended by section 3126 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 1130966) to
clarify that the Secretary of Energy may adjust the statutory
cost cap of $4.2 billion for Phase I of the UCRP if, by March
15, 2015, the Secretary of Energy submits to the congressional
defense committees a detailed justification for such
adjustment. This justification would be required to include:
the amount of the adjustment and the proposed total cost of
Phase I; a description of the changes that would be required to
the UCRP if Phase I were restricted to a total cost of $4.2
billion; a detailed description of accountability actions taken
with respect to contractors and Federal employees; a
description of the clear lines of responsibility, authority,
and accountability for UCRP going forward; and a detailed
description of the structural reforms planned or implemented by
the Secretary of Energy to ensure Phase I is executed on time
and on schedule.
This section would also require the Secretary of Energy to
certify to the congressional defense committees and the
Secretary of Defense by March 1 of each year through 2025 that
Phase I of the UCRP will meet the cost limitation of $4.2
billion (as adjusted) and that the UCRP will enable uranium
operations in building 9212 of the Y-12 National Security
Complex to cease by 2025 while uranium operations begin in a
new facility constructed under the UCRP by 2025. If the
Secretary of Energy does not make such a certification by March
1 in any year, the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council
would be required to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees that identifies the resources of the
Department of Energy that the chairman determines should be
redirected to enable the Department of Energy to meet the cost
and schedule targets.
Finally, this section would require the Secretary of Energy
and the Secretary of the Navy to jointly submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2015, on
implementation of section 3123(e) of Public Law 112-239, as
amended. This report would be required to include a description
of the program management, oversight, design, and other
responsibilities for UCRP given to the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (NAVFAC) and the funding provided by the
Secretary of Energy to NAVFAC to carry out these
responsibilities.
Section 3114--Plutonium Pit Production Capacity
This section would make a series of findings related to the
Administration's projections to achieve the required capacity
to produce 50 to 80 plutonium pits by certain years. This
section would also state the sense of Congress that: (1) the
requirement to create a modern, responsive nuclear
infrastructure that includes the capability and capacity to
produce, at minimum, 50 to 80 pits per year, is a national
security priority; (2) delaying creation of a modern,
responsive nuclear infrastructure until the 2030s is an
unacceptable risk to the nuclear deterrent and the national
security of the United States; and (3) timelines for creating
certain capacities for production of plutonium pits and other
nuclear weapons components must be driven by the requirement to
hedge against technical and geopolitical risk and not solely by
the needs of life extension programs.
This section would also add a new section to title 42 of
the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521) to require the
Secretary of Energy to ensure that the nuclear security
enterprise produces at least 30 war reserve pits during 2023,
at least 50 war reserve pits during 2026, and, during a pilot
period of at least 90 days during 2027, demonstrate the
capability to produce war reserve pits at a rate sufficient to
produce 80 pits per year. The Secretary of Energy would be
required to certify to the congressional defense committees and
the Secretary of Defense by March 1 of each year until 2027
that the programs and budget of the Department of Energy will
meet these pit production milestones. If the Secretary of
Energy is unable to make such a certification in any year, the
Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council would be required to
submit a plan to the congressional defense committees by May 1
of such year. This plan would be required to include
identification of the resources of the Department of Energy
that the chairman determines should be redirected to enable the
nuclear security enterprise to meet the pit production
milestones described by this section.
The committee is concerned that, despite the President's
policy to create a responsive nuclear infrastructure to enable
nuclear stockpile reductions without undue risk, the Department
of Energy continues to slip schedules and programs needed to
achieve this critical national security goal. With the proposed
deferral of the first interoperable warhead, the Department has
concurrently proposed to defer plans to achieve the Secretary
of Defense's revalidated requirement for a plutonium pit
production capacity of 50 to 80 pits per year. As a key
component of a responsive nuclear infrastructure, continued
delay in achieving this pit production capacity is
unacceptable. The committee believes that waiting over 15 years
to achieve a responsive nuclear infrastructure is too great a
risk to national security.
Section 3115--Definition of Baseline and Threshold for Stockpile Life
Extension Project
This section would amend section 4713 of the Atomic Energy
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2753) to clarify that the cost and
schedule baseline of a nuclear stockpile life extension project
established pursuant to such section shall be the cost and
schedule contained in the weapon design and cost report
required prior to the project entering into the development
engineering phase.
This section would also lower the threshold for
congressional notification on costs per warhead exceeding the
baseline from 200 percent to 150 percent.
Section 3116--Production of Nuclear Warhead for Long-Range Standoff
Weapon
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
deliver a first production unit for a nuclear warhead for the
long-range standoff weapon not later than September 30, 2025.
This section would also require the Secretary of Energy and the
Secretary of Defense to jointly develop a plan to carry out
this mandate and require the Secretaries to submit this plan to
the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
This section would also require the Secretary of Energy,
should the Secretary determine at any time that a first
production unit will not be delivered by September 30, 2025, to
notify the congressional defense committees, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command of such
determination, including an explanation for why delivery will
not occur by such date. If the Secretary of Energy makes such a
notification, the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command would be
required to submit an assessment to the congressional defense
committees regarding the effects of such delay on national
security and nuclear deterrence and assurance, as well as any
mitigation options available.
Finally, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Strategic
Command, to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act on the justification for the long-range
standoff weapon.
The committee believes the proposed 3-year deferral of this
cruise missile is contrary to the interests of national
security. Therefore, the committee recommends this provision to
ensure warhead production for this cruise missile is deferred
only 1 year.
Section 3117--Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
specifically carry out construction and program support
activities with fiscal year 2015 funds authorized for the Mixed
Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) for construction and
program support activities. Program support activities are
defined as those activities in support of the design, long-lead
equipment, procurement, and site preparation for the MFFF.
If the Secretary of Energy determines that fiscal year 2015
funds for construction and program support activities
associated with MFFF should be used for a purpose other than
construction and program support activities for MFFF, the
Secretary may utilize reprogramming guidance in accordance with
established procedures provided to the Department of Energy
defense-related program in section 4702 of the Atomic Energy
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2742).
This section would also require the Secretary to enter into
a contract with a federally funded research and development
center (FFRDC) not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act to conduct a study to assess and validate
the Department of Energy's analysis of options for the
disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. The Secretary
shall then submit a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act. The report shall include the FFRDC
assessment, as well as the Department's identification and
discussion of the life-cycle cost analyses, and explanation of
how the alternatives conform with the Plutonium Management and
Disposition Agreement between the Governments of the United
States and the Russian Federation.
Section 3118--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Office of the
Administrator for Nuclear Security
This section would limit the availability of funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made
available for fiscal year 2015 for the National Nuclear
Security Administration's (NNSA) Office of the Administrator to
not more than 75 percent until several statutorily required
reports are submitted to certain congressional committees in
2015. These include:
(1) The report on stockpile assessments required under
section 4205(f)(2) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
2525(f)(2));
(2) The Secretary of Energy's portion of the report
required by section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81);
(3) The annual assessment required under section 3122 of
Public Law 112-81; and
(4) The detailed report on the stockpile stewardship,
management, and infrastructure plan required by section 4203(b)
of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2523(b)).
The committee notes that in past years, the NNSA has not
submitted several key statutorily required reports in a timely
fashion, or in certain cases, at all. The committee is pleased
that section 3115 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) appears to have provided
NNSA the necessary incentive to submit these reports in a
timely way in 2014. The committee therefore recommends a
similar section for inclusion in this Act to ensure timely
submission is continued into 2015. The committee believes these
reports are critical to effective congressional oversight of
the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons
stockpile, NNSA programs, and the Administration's plans for
the stockpile and enterprise.
Section 3119--Additional Limitation on Availability of Funds for Office
of the Administrator for Nuclear Security
This section would limit the availability of funds, in
addition to a limitation included elsewhere in this title,
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made
available for fiscal year 2015 for the National Nuclear
Security Administration's (NNSA) Office of the Administrator to
not more than 90 percent until the date on which the
Administrator for Nuclear Security submits to the congressional
defense committees a report on the efficiencies proposed by the
2012 Joint Department of Energy/Department of Defense Study on
Potential NNSA Management and Work Force Prioritization
Efficiencies. The report would be required to include details
on how the Administrator will carry out each efficiency measure
proposed by the joint study during fiscal year 2015.
This section would also require the Nuclear Weapons Council
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2015, on the efficiencies that the Council recommends
the Administrator carry out during fiscal year 2016. The
council would also be required to include in the report the
council's assessment of the reports submitted by the
Administrator and the Comptroller General of the United States
pursuant to section 3123 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), as well as the
council's assessment of each of the matters contained in
subsection 3123(a)(2) of Public Law 112-81.
The committee notes that, in the fiscal year 2014 budget
request, NNSA proposed to find $320.0 million in management and
workforce prioritization efficiencies and use these savings to
fund high priority nuclear modernization programs. These
proposed efficiencies were based upon a joint study conducted
by, and agreed to by, both the Department of Defense and NNSA.
On May 9, 2013, the Acting Administrator for Nuclear Security
testified before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces that,
``if we were unable to realize all of the efficiencies that we
have assumed in fiscal [year] 2014, 5-year budget, we
definitely would have to . . . go back and rethink how we are
going to execute the programs we have.'' In the committee
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee expressed
its concern that these efficiencies would not be achieved and
major impacts to critical nuclear modernization programs would
result.
The most recent information provided to the committee by
NNSA indicates that only $80.0 million of these efficiencies
will actually be realized in fiscal year 2014, while $240.0
million will not. The committee believes NNSA's inability or
unwillingness to aggressively pursue savings through
efficiencies it agreed to in 2012 have directly contributed to
forcing schedule slips in critical programs due to insufficient
funding. Therefore, the committee recommends this section and
expects NNSA and the Nuclear Weapons Council to aggressively
seek efficiencies in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016 to
ensure high priority defense programs stay on track.
Section 3120--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Non-Proliferation
Activities Between the United States and the Russian Federation
This section would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2015
funds for the National Nuclear Security Administration for any
contact, cooperation, or transfer of technology between the
United States and the Russian Federation until the Secretary of
Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of State and
Secretary of Defense, certifies to the appropriate
congressional committees that the Russian Federation is
respecting the sovereignty of Ukrainian territory, no longer
acting inconsistently with the Intermediate-range Nuclear
Forces Treaty, and in compliance with the Treaty on
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The section would include
a waiver for the Secretary of Energy, pending a notification,
in coordination with the Secretary of State and Secretary of
Defense, to the appropriate congressional committees that such
contact, cooperation, or technology transfer is in the national
interests of the United States and a period of 30 days has
elapsed following the notification.
The committee notes that at the time that this report was
filed, in response to ongoing Russian aggression toward
Ukraine, the Secretary of Energy has suspended nuclear security
cooperation. Similar to the position the committee has stated
elsewhere in this report, the committee believes that U.S.-
Russia nuclear security cooperation must remain suspended so
long as Russia continues its aggression toward Ukraine and
continues to take actions inconsistent with its treaty
obligations.
Section 3121--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation Activities at Sites in Russian Federation
This section would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2015
funds for the National Nuclear Security Administration for any
defense nuclear nonproliferation activities at sites in the
Russian Federation until at least 30 days have elapsed
following the date that the Secretary of Energy certifies to
the appropriate congressional committees that such sites are
not actively engaged in Russian nuclear weapons, intelligence,
or defense activities. This section would include a waiver for
the President to submit a notification that such a waiver is in
the national interests of the United States and that none of
the funds will be contributed to Russia`s nuclear weapons
program, and a period of 30 days has elapsed following the date
of the notification.
Subtitle C--Plans and Reports
Section 3131--Cost Estimation and Program Evaluation by National
Nuclear Security Administration
This section would amend section 3221(h) of the National
Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2411) to clarify
that the term ``Administration'', with respect to any
authority, duty, or responsibility provided by section 3211,
does not include the Office of Naval Reactors.
Section 3132--Analysis and Report on W88 Alt 370 Program High
Explosives Options
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy, the
Administrator for Nuclear Security, and the Chairman of the
Nuclear Weapons Council to submit a joint report to the
congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act on the W88 Alt 370 nuclear warhead
program. The report would be required to contain analysis of
the costs, benefits, risks, and feasibility of both including
and not including a refresh of the conventional high explosives
of the W88 warhead as part of the W88 Alt 370 program.
The report would be required to include, for each option:
(1) Near-term and lifecycle cost estimates, including costs
to both the Navy and the National Nuclear Security
Administration;
(2) Potential cost avoidance;
(3) Operational effects to the Navy and to the capacity and
throughput of the nuclear security enterprise of the National
Nuclear Security Administration;
(4) The expected longevity of the W88 warhead;
(5) Near-term and long-term safety and security risks, as
well as potential risk-mitigation measures; and
(6) Any other matters the Secretary, the Administrator, or
the Chairman considers appropriate.
The committee expects the Nuclear Weapons Council to arrive
at a decision regarding whether or not to include a refresh of
the conventional high explosives as part of the W88 Alt 370
program in time to inform the budget request for fiscal year
2016.
Section 3133--Analysis of Existing Facilities
This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act containing analysis of using or modifying
existing facilities across the nuclear security enterprise to
support the plutonium strategy of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. The report would be required to include an
analysis of the costs, benefits, cost-savings, risks, and
effects of using or modifying existing facilities as compared
to the carrying out all phases of the Administrator's current
plan for the plutonium strategy. The report may also include
such other matters as the Administrator determines appropriate.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 3141--Technical Corrections to Atomic Energy Defense Act
This section would make technical corrections to the Atomic
Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2501).
Section 3142--Technical Corrections to National Nuclear Security
Administration Act
This section would make technical corrections to section
3220 (50 U.S.C. 2410) and section 3236 (50 U.S.C. 2426) of the
National Nuclear Security Administration Act.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $30.2 million for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2015. The
committee recommends $30.2 million, the amount of the budget
request.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3201--Authorization
This section would authorize funds for the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2015.
Section 3202--Inspector General of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board
This section would amend section 322 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2286k(a)) to mandate that the Inspector
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall serve as the
Inspector General of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board, in accordance with the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5
U.S.C. App).
Section 3203--Number of Employees of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board
This section would amend section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2286b(b)(1)(A)) to limit the
number of full-time employees of the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board to 120. This section would specify that this limit
would take effect on October 1, 2015.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize $19.9 million for fiscal year
2015 for operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and
Oil Reserves.
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Obsolete Vessel ``Best Value'' Contracts
The committee notes that the Maritime Administration
(MARAD) disposes of obsolete vessels pursuant to ``best value''
contracts. On February 12, 2014, the Government Accountability
Office released a report assessing MARAD's ship disposal
program which indicated, ``(a)lmost all of the contractors were
unsure as to how MARAD determines best value under sales
contracts. Most of the contractors told us that they did not
always understand why they lost a ship recycling contract.
Three contractors noted it was particularly confusing when they
offered the best price with what they believed to be a
reasonable schedule compared to other contractors, yet still
lost the contract. A couple admitted that there were instances
where they did not understand why they won a contract.'' The
committee believes that MARAD should provide better definition
as to the selection procedures associated with ``best value''
contracts.
The committee is also concerned about the lack of
transparency associated with the amounts of appropriated funds
expended and sales accrued and disbursed through the ship
disposal program.
Therefore, in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy,
the committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to
provide the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by March 1, 2015 a report on the ship disposal
program that:
(1) Provides a 5-year program projection for vessel
scrapping under the ship disposal program, and an estimate of
the vessels remaining at the end of that 5-year period;
(2) Compares the MARAD ship disposal program with other
federal ship disposal programs;
(3) Explains the criteria MARAD uses in determining ``best
value'' when evaluating ship disposal procurement proposals,
and the relative ranking of the importance of each of those
criteria;
(4) Provides a detailed explanation of amounts appropriated
and expended in carrying out in the ship disposal program, and
of amount received and disbursed from the sales of vessels
disposed of through that program over the previous 5 fiscal
years.
Recapitalization of the U.S. Maritime Ready Reserve Force Fleet
The committee believes it is in the interest of U.S.
national security that the U.S. merchant marine, both ships and
mariners, serve as a national auxiliary in times of war or
national emergency. The Ready Reserve Force of the U.S.
Maritime Administration, a component of the National Defense
Reserve Fleet, plays an important role in U.S. national
security by providing necessary readiness and efficiency in the
form of a government-owned sealift fleet. The committee
believes it is important that the Ready Reserve Force fleet
remains capable, modern, and efficient in order to best serve
the national security needs of the United States in times of
war or national emergency. Accordingly, the committee directs
the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command to brief the House
Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2014, on the
options considered to modernize and recapitalize the Ready
Reserve Force fleet and on the Commander's recommended path
forward.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for National Security
Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 2015
This section would authorize appropriations for the
national security aspects of the merchant marine for fiscal
year 2015.
Section 3502--Special Rule for DD-17
This section would limit the application of section 55102
of title 46, United States Code to Drydock-17 (formerly known
as USN-YFD-17) in the waters of the State of Alabama.
Section 3503--Sense of Congress on the Role of Domestic Maritime
Industry in National Security
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding
the role of domestic maritime industry in national security.
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES
Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables
This section would provide for the allocation of funds
among programs, projects, and activities in accordance with the
tables in division D of this Act, subject to reprogramming
guidance in accordance with established procedures.
Consistent with the previously expressed views of the
committee, this section would also require that a decision by
an Agency Head to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a
specific entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on
merit-based selection procedures in accordance with the
requirements of section 2304(k) and section 2374 of title 10,
United States Code, and other applicable provisions of law.
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
(In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House House
FY 2015 Request Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request
Function 051, Department of Defense-Military
Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations
Title I--Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army....................................... 5,102,685 147,400 5,250,085
Missile Procurement, Army........................................ 1,017,483 1,017,483
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.......................... 1,471,438 230,298 1,701,736
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.................................. 1,031,477 -23,400 1,008,077
Other Procurement, Army.......................................... 4,893,634 -192,400 4,701,234
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund.................... 115,058 -115,058 0
Aircraft Procurement, Navy....................................... 13,074,317 411,600 13,485,917
Weapons Procurement, Navy........................................ 3,217,945 63,000 3,280,945
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps................... 771,945 771,945
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy.................................. 14,400,625 659,600 15,060,225
Other Procurement, Navy.......................................... 5,975,828 222,300 6,198,128
Procurement, Marine Corps........................................ 983,352 -25,100 958,252
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.................................. 11,542,571 -122,671 11,419,900
Missile Procurement, Air Force................................... 4,690,506 132,000 4,822,506
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force............................. 677,400 677,400
Other Procurement, Air Force..................................... 16,566,018 -64,000 16,502,018
Procurement, Defense-Wide........................................ 4,221,437 172,100 4,393,537
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund.............................. 20,000 -20,000 0
Prior Year Rescissions........................................... -265,685 265,685 0
Undistributed General Provisions................................. 0 -265,685 -265,685
Subtotal, Title I--Procurement................................... 89,508,034 1,475,669 90,983,703
Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army................... 6,593,898 -13,896 6,580,002
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy................... 16,266,335 -82,500 16,183,835
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force.............. 23,739,892 125,500 23,865,392
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide........... 16,766,084 223,348 16,989,432
Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense........................... 167,738 5,000 172,738
Subtotal, Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation... 63,533,947 257,452 63,791,399
Title III--Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army.................................... 33,240,148 -369,100 32,871,048
Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve............................ 2,490,569 11,300 2,501,869
Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard..................... 6,030,773 182,800 6,213,573
Operation & Maintenance, Navy.................................... 39,025,857 -143,052 38,882,805
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps............................ 5,909,487 -56,700 5,852,787
Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve............................ 1,007,100 -2,800 1,004,300
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve.................... 268,582 -2,600 265,982
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................... 35,331,193 -180,129 35,151,064
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve....................... 3,015,842 -16,900 2,998,942
Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard...................... 6,392,859 -19,800 6,373,059
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide............................ 31,198,232 -550,096 30,648,136
US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Defense................ 13,723 13,723
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid.................... 100,000 4,500 104,500
Cooperative Threat Reduction..................................... 365,108 -10,500 354,608
Defense Acquisition Development Workforce Fund................... 212,875 -3,500 209,375
Environmental Restoration, Army.................................. 201,560 201,560
Environmental Restoration, Navy.................................. 277,294 277,294
Environmental Restoration, Air Force............................. 408,716 408,716
Environmental Restoration, Defense............................... 8,547 8,547
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Sites................... 208,353 208,353
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund.................... 5,000 -5,000 0
Support Of International Sporting Competitions, Defense.......... 10,000 -4,800 5,200
Subtotal, Title III--Operation and Maintenance................... 165,721,818 -1,166,377 164,555,441
Title IV--Military Personnel
Military Personnel Appropriations................................ 128,957,593 49,430 129,007,023
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions.............. 6,236,092 1,000 6,237,092
Subtotal, Title IV--Military Personnel........................... 135,193,685 50,430 135,244,115
Title XIV--Other Authorizations
Working Capital Fund, Army....................................... 13,727 13,727
Working Capital Fund, Air Force.................................. 61,717 61,717
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide............................... 44,293 44,293
Working Capital Fund, DECA....................................... 1,114,731 100,000 1,214,731
Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction.......................... 828,868 828,868
Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities.................... 820,687 820,687
Office of the Inspector General.................................. 311,830 311,830
Defense Health Program........................................... 31,833,061 -387,400 31,445,661
Subtotal, Title XIV--Other Authorizations........................ 35,028,914 -287,400 34,741,514
Total, Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations.......... 488,986,398 329,774 489,316,172
Division B: Military Construction Authorizations
Military Construction
Army............................................................. 539,427 203,000 742,427
Navy............................................................. 1,018,772 -20,000 998,772
Air Force........................................................ 811,774 811,774
Defense-Wide..................................................... 2,061,890 -29,000 2,032,890
Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense.................. 38,715 38,715
NATO Security Investment Program................................. 199,700 199,700
Army National Guard.............................................. 126,920 34,800 161,720
Army Reserve..................................................... 103,946 60,300 164,246
Navy and Marine Corps Reserve.................................... 51,528 51,528
Air National Guard............................................... 94,663 94,663
Air Force Reserve................................................ 49,492 49,492
Subtotal, Military Construction.................................. 5,096,827 249,100 5,345,927
Family Housing
Construction, Army............................................... 78,609 78,609
Operation & Maintenance, Army.................................... 350,976 350,976
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps.............................. 16,412 16,412
Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps................... 354,029 354,029
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................... 327,747 327,747
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide............................ 61,100 61,100
Family Housing Improvement Fund.................................. 1,662 1,662
Subtotal, Family Housing......................................... 1,190,535 1,190,535
Base Realignment and Closure
Base Realignment and Closure--Army............................... 84,417 84,417
Base Realignment and Closure--Navy............................... 94,692 94,692
Base Realignment and Closure--Air Force.......................... 90,976 90,976
Subtotal, Base Realignment and Closure........................... 270,085 270,085
Undistributed Adjustments
Prior Year Savings............................................... 0 -204,577 -204,577
General Reductions............................................... 0 -69,000 -69,000
Subtotal, Undistributed Adjustments.............................. 0 -273,577 -273,577
Total, Division B: Military Construction Authorizations.......... 6,557,447 -24,477 6,532,970
Total, 051, Department of Defense-Military....................... 495,543,845 305,297 495,849,142
Function 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities
Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorization and Other Authorizations
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Nuclear Energy................................................... 104,000 0 104,000
Weapons Activities............................................... 8,314,902 147,700 8,462,602
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................................. 1,555,156 10,000 1,565,156
Naval Reactors................................................... 1,377,100 10,000 1,387,100
Office of the Administrator...................................... 410,842 -24,000 386,842
Defense Environmental Cleanup.................................... 5,327,538 -457,000 4,870,538
Other Defense Activities......................................... 753,000 5,300 758,300
Subtotal, Environmental and Other Defense Activities............. 17,842,538 -308,000 17,534,538
Independent Federal Agency Authorization
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.......................... 30,150 30,150
Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization............... 30,150 30,150
Subtotal, Division C: Department of Energy National Security 17,872,688 -308,000 17,564,688
Authorization and Other Authorizations..........................
Subtotal, 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities.................. 17,872,688 -308,000 17,564,688
Total, National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request............. 513,416,533 -2,703 513,413,830
National Defense Funding, OCO Budget Request..................... 79,445,000 79,445,000
Total, National Defense.......................................... 592,861,533 -2,703 592,858,830
MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
Title XIV--Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600)........... 63,400 63,400
Title XIV--Cemeterial Expenses, Army (Function 700).............. 45,800 16,081 61,881
Title XXXIV--Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves (Function 19,950 19,950
270)............................................................
Title XXXV--Maritime Administration (Function 400)............... 148,400 148,400
MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADD)
Title X--General Transfer Authority.............................. [5,000,000] [4,000,000]
Title XV--Special Transfer Authority............................. [3,000,000]
MEMORANDUM: DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE (NON-ADD)
Defense Production Act........................................... 21,638 21,638
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
(In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 House House
Request Change Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the
Armed Services Committee
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 495,543,845 305,297 495,849,142
(051).........................
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 17,872,688 -308,000 17,564,688
PROGRAMS (053)................
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)-- 513,416,533 -2,703 513,413,830
BASE BILL.....................
TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 79,445,000 79,445,000
OPERATIONS....................
GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE.. 592,861,533 -2,703 592,858,830
Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are Not In the
Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee or Do Not Require
Additional Authorization
Defense Production Act 22,000 22,000
Purchases.....................
Indefinite Account: Disposal Of 8,000 8,000
DOD Real Property.............
Indefinite Account: Lease Of 31,000 31,000
DOD Real Property.............
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 61,000 61,000
051...........................
Formerly Utilized Sites 100,000 100,000
Remedial Action Program.......
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 100,000 100,000
053...........................
Other Discretionary Programs... 7,681,000 7,681,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 7,681,000 7,681,000
054...........................
Total Defense Discretionary 7,842,000 7,842,000
Adjustments (050).............
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary
Department of Defense--Military 575,049,845 305,297 575,355,142
(051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense 17,972,688 -308,000 17,664,688
Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities 7,681,000 7,681,000
(054).........................
Total BA Implication, National 600,703,533 -2,703 600,700,830
Defense Discretionary.........
National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates)
Concurrent receipt accrual 7,071,000 7,071,000
payments to the Military
Retirement Fund...............
Revolving, trust and other DOD 1,169,000 1,169,000
Mandatory.....................
Offsetting receipts............ -1,591,000 -1,591,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 6,649,000 6,649,000
051...........................
Energy employees occupational 1,197,000 1,197,000
illness compensation programs
and other.....................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 1,197,000 1,197,000
053...........................
Radiation exposure compensation 59,000 59,000
trust fund....................
Payment to CIA retirement fund 514,000 514,000
and other.....................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 573,000 573,000
054...........................
Total National Defense 8,419,000 8,419,000
Mandatory (050)...............
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and
Mandatory
Department of Defense--Military 581,698,845 305,209 582,004,054
(051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense 19,169,688 -308,000 18,861,688
Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities 8,254,000 8,254,000
(054).........................
Total BA Implication, National 609,122,533 -2,791 609,119,742
Defense Discretionary and
Mandatory.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized
Line Item ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
FIXED WING
002 UTILITY F/W 1 13,617 1 13,617
AIRCRAFT.
003 AERIAL COMMON 16 185,090 16 185,090
SENSOR (ACS)
(MIP).
004 MQ-1 UAV....... 19 190,581 49,000 19 239,581
Extended [49,000]
range
modificatio
ns Per Army
UFR.
005 RQ-11 (RAVEN).. 3,964 3,964
ROTARY
006 HELICOPTER, 55 416,617 55 416,617
LIGHT UTILITY
(LUH).
007 AH-64 APACHE 25 494,009 25 494,009
BLOCK IIIA
REMAN.
008 ADVANCE 157,338 157,338
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
012 UH-60 BLACKHAWK 79 1,237,001 98,400 79 1,335,401
M MODEL (MYP).
ARNG [98,400]
Modernizati
on-6
additional
UH-60M
aircraft.
013 ADVANCE 132,138 132,138
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
014 CH-47 32 892,504 32 892,504
HELICOPTER.
015 ADVANCE 102,361 102,361
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
016 MQ-1 PAYLOAD 2 26,913 2 26,913
(MIP).
018 GUARDRAIL MODS 14,182 14,182
(MIP).
019 MULTI SENSOR 131,892 131,892
ABN RECON
(MIP).
020 AH-64 MODS..... 181,869 181,869
021 CH-47 CARGO 32,092 32,092
HELICOPTER
MODS (MYP).
022 UTILITY/CARGO 15,029 15,029
AIRPLANE MODS.
023 UTILITY 76,515 6,800 83,315
HELICOPTER
MODS.
ARNG [6,800]
Modernizati
on-UH-60A
to UH-60L
conversions.
025 NETWORK AND 114,182 114,182
MISSION PLAN.
026 COMMS, NAV 115,795 115,795
SURVEILLANCE.
027 GATM ROLLUP.... 54,277 54,277
028 RQ-7 UAV MODS.. 125,380 125,380
GROUND SUPPORT
AVIONICS
029 AIRCRAFT 66,450 32,400 98,850
SURVIVABILITY
EQUIPMENT.
Army [32,400]
requested
realignment.
030 SURVIVABILITY 7,800 7,800
CM.
Army [7,800]
requested
realignment.
031 CMWS........... 107,364 -47,000 60,364
Army [-47,000]
requested
reduction.
OTHER SUPPORT
032 AVIONICS 6,847 6,847
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
033 COMMON GROUND 29,231 29,231
EQUIPMENT.
034 AIRCREW 48,081 48,081
INTEGRATED
SYSTEMS.
035 AIR TRAFFIC 127,232 127,232
CONTROL.
036 INDUSTRIAL 1,203 1,203
FACILITIES.
037 LAUNCHER, 2.75 387 2,931 387 2,931
ROCKET.
TOTAL 616 5,102,685 147,400 616 5,250,085
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR
MISSILE SYSTEM
002 LOWER TIER AIR 110,300 110,300
AND MISSILE
DEFENSE (AMD).
003 MSE MISSILE.... 70 384,605 70 384,605
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
004 HELLFIRE SYS 4,452 4,452
SUMMARY.
ANTI-TANK/
ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
005 JAVELIN (AAWS- 338 77,668 338 77,668
M) SYSTEM
SUMMARY.
006 TOW 2 SYSTEM 1,008 50,368 1,008 50,368
SUMMARY.
007 ADVANCE 19,984 19,984
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
008 GUIDED MLRS 534 127,145 534 127,145
ROCKET (GMLRS).
009 MLRS REDUCED 2,994 21,274 2,994 21,274
RANGE PRACTICE
ROCKETS (RRPR).
MODIFICATIONS
012 PATRIOT MODS... 131,838 131,838
013 STINGER MODS... 1,355 1,355
014 AVENGER MODS... 5,611 5,611
015 ITAS/TOW MODS.. 19,676 19,676
016 MLRS MODS...... 10,380 10,380
017 HIMARS 6,008 6,008
MODIFICATIONS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
018 SPARES AND 36,930 36,930
REPAIR PARTS.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
019 AIR DEFENSE 3,657 3,657
TARGETS.
020 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,522 1,522
$5.0M
(MISSILES).
021 PRODUCTION BASE 4,710 4,710
SUPPORT.
TOTAL 4,944 1,017,483 4,944 1,017,483
MISSILE
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
001 STRYKER VEHICLE 385,110 385,110
MODIFICATION OF
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
002 STRYKER (MOD).. 39,683 50,000 89,683
Unfunded [50,000]
requirement-
Fourth DVH
Brigade Set.
003 FIST VEHICLE 26,759 26,759
(MOD).
004 BRADLEY PROGRAM 107,506 107,506
(MOD).
005 HOWITZER, MED 45,411 45,411
SP FT 155MM
M109A6 (MOD).
006 PALADIN 18 247,400 18 247,400
INTEGRATED
MANAGEMENT
(PIM).
007 IMPROVED 15 50,451 15 50,451
RECOVERY
VEHICLE (M88A2
HERCULES).
008 ASSAULT BRIDGE 2,473 2,473
(MOD).
009 ASSAULT 7 36,583 7 36,583
BREACHER
VEHICLE.
010 M88 FOV MODS... 1,975 72,000 73,975
Unfunded [72,000]
requirement-
Industrial
Base
Initiative.
011 JOINT ASSAULT 8 49,462 8 49,462
BRIDGE.
012 M1 ABRAMS TANK 237,023 237,023
(MOD).
013 ABRAMS UPGRADE 120,000 120,000
PROGRAM.
Industrial [120,000]
Base
initiative.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
014 PRODUCTION BASE 6,478 6,478
SUPPORT (TCV-
WTCV).
WEAPONS & OTHER
COMBAT
VEHICLES
016 MORTAR SYSTEMS. 5,012 5,012
017 XM320 GRENADE 8,959 28,390 8,959 28,390
LAUNCHER
MODULE (GLM).
018 COMPACT SEMI- 148 148
AUTOMATIC
SNIPER SYSTEM.
019 CARBINE........ 38,234 29,366 -8,750 38,234 20,616
Army [-8,750]
requested
realignment.
021 COMMON REMOTELY 8,409 8,409
OPERATED
WEAPONS
STATION.
022 HANDGUN........ 4,811 3,957 -2,000 4,811 1,957
Funding [-2,000]
ahead of
need.
MOD OF WEAPONS
AND OTHER
COMBAT VEH
024 M777 MODS...... 18,166 18,166
025 M4 CARBINE MODS 3,446 3,000 6,446
Army [3,000]
requested
realignment.
026 M2 50 CAL 25,296 25,296
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
027 M249 SAW 5,546 5,546
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
028 M240 MEDIUM 4,635 -2,000 2,635
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
Army [-2,000]
requested
realignment.
029 SNIPER RIFLES 4,079 4,079
MODIFICATIONS.
030 M119 72,718 72,718
MODIFICATIONS.
031 M16 RIFLE MODS. 1,952 -1,952 0
Army [-1,952]
requested
realignment.
032 MORTAR 8,903 8,903
MODIFICATION.
033 MODIFICATIONS 2,089 2,089
LESS THAN
$5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
034 ITEMS LESS THAN 2,005 2,005
$5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).
035 PRODUCTION BASE 8,911 8,911
SUPPORT (WOCV-
WTCV).
036 INDUSTRIAL 414 414
PREPAREDNESS.
037 SMALL ARMS 1,682 1,682
EQUIPMENT
(SOLDIER ENH
PROG).
TOTAL 52,052 1,471,438 230,298 52,052 1,701,736
PROCUREMEN
T OF
W&TCV,
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION,
ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM
CAL AMMUNITION
001 CTG, 5.56MM, 34,943 34,943
ALL TYPES.
002 CTG, 7.62MM, 12,418 12,418
ALL TYPES.
003 CTG, HANDGUN, 9,655 -1,500 8,155
ALL TYPES.
Funding [-1,500]
ahead of
need.
004 CTG, .50 CAL, 29,304 29,304
ALL TYPES.
006 CTG, 25MM, ALL 8,181 8,181
TYPES.
007 CTG, 30MM, ALL 52,667 52,667
TYPES.
008 CTG, 40MM, ALL 40,904 40,904
TYPES.
MORTAR
AMMUNITION
009 60MM MORTAR, 41,742 41,742
ALL TYPES.
010 81MM MORTAR, 42,433 42,433
ALL TYPES.
011 120MM MORTAR, 39,365 39,365
ALL TYPES.
TANK AMMUNITION
012 CARTRIDGES, 101,900 101,900
TANK, 105MM
AND 120MM, ALL
TYPES.
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
013 ARTILLERY 37,455 37,455
CARTRIDGES,
75MM & 105MM,
ALL TYPES.
014 ARTILLERY 47,023 47,023
PROJECTILE,
155MM, ALL
TYPES.
015 PROJ 155MM 416 35,672 416 35,672
EXTENDED RANGE
M982.
016 ARTILLERY 94,010 -20,000 74,010
PROPELLANTS,
FUZES AND
PRIMERS, ALL.
Precision [-20,000]
Guided Kits
Schedule
Delay.
ROCKETS
019 SHOULDER 945 945
LAUNCHED
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.
020 ROCKET, HYDRA 27,286 27,286
70, ALL TYPES.
OTHER
AMMUNITION
021 DEMOLITION 22,899 22,899
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.
022 GRENADES, ALL 22,751 22,751
TYPES.
023 SIGNALS, ALL 7,082 7,082
TYPES.
024 SIMULATORS, ALL 11,638 11,638
TYPES.
MISCELLANEOUS
025 AMMO 3,594 3,594
COMPONENTS,
ALL TYPES.
027 CAD/PAD ALL 5,430 5,430
TYPES.
028 ITEMS LESS THAN 8,337 8,337
$5 MILLION
(AMMO).
029 AMMUNITION 14,906 14,906
PECULIAR
EQUIPMENT.
030 FIRST 14,349 14,349
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
(AMMO).
031 CLOSEOUT 111 111
LIABILITIES.
PRODUCTION BASE
SUPPORT
032 PROVISION OF 148,092 -1,900 146,192
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
Unjustified [-1,900]
request.
033 CONVENTIONAL 113,881 113,881
MUNITIONS
DEMILITARIZATI
ON.
034 ARMS INITIATIVE 2,504 2,504
TOTAL 416 1,031,477 -23,400 416 1,008,077
PROCUREMEN
T OF
AMMUNITION
, ARMY.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
001 TACTICAL 7,987 7,987
TRAILERS/DOLLY
SETS.
002 SEMITRAILERS, 1 160 1 160
FLATBED:.
004 JOINT LIGHT 176 164,615 176 164,615
TACTICAL
VEHICLE.
005 FAMILY OF 50,000 50,000
MEDIUM
TACTICAL VEH
(FMTV).
Additional [50,000]
FMTVs -
Industrial
Base
initiative.
006 FIRETRUCKS & 19 8,415 19 8,415
ASSOCIATED
FIREFIGHTING
EQUIP.
007 FAMILY OF HEAVY 444 28,425 50,000 444 78,425
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
(FHTV).
Additional [50,000]
HEMTT ESP
Vehicles-
Industrial
Base
initiative.
008 PLS ESP........ 198 89,263 198 89,263
013 TACTICAL 735 38,226 735 38,226
WHEELED
VEHICLE
PROTECTION
KITS.
014 MODIFICATION OF 768 91,173 -8,000 768 83,173
IN SVC EQUIP.
Early to [-8,000]
need.
015 MINE-RESISTANT 1 14,731 1 14,731
AMBUSH-
PROTECTED
(MRAP) MODS.
NON-TACTICAL
VEHICLES
016 HEAVY ARMORED 1 175 1 175
SEDAN.
017 PASSENGER 25 1,338 25 1,338
CARRYING
VEHICLES.
018 NONTACTICAL 11,101 11,101
VEHICLES,
OTHER.
COMM--JOINT
COMMUNICATIONS
019 WIN-T--GROUND 1,280 763,087 -125,000 1,280 638,087
FORCES
TACTICAL
NETWORK.
Unobligated [-125,000]
balances.
020 SIGNAL 69 21,157 69 21,157
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
021 JOINT INCIDENT 7,915 7,915
SITE
COMMUNICATIONS
CAPABILITY.
022 JCSE EQUIPMENT 5,440 5,440
(USREDCOM).
COMM--SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
023 DEFENSE 18 118,085 18 118,085
ENTERPRISE
WIDEBAND
SATCOM SYSTEMS.
024 TRANSPORTABLE 21 13,999 21 13,999
TACTICAL
COMMAND
COMMUNICATIONS.
025 SHF TERM....... 6,494 6,494
026 NAVSTAR GLOBAL 1,635 1,635
POSITIONING
SYSTEM (SPACE).
027 SMART-T (SPACE) 13,554 13,554
028 GLOBAL BRDCST 18,899 18,899
SVC--GBS.
029 MOD OF IN-SVC 2,849 2,849
EQUIP (TAC
SAT).
030 ENROUTE MISSION 100,000 100,000
COMMAND (EMC).
COMM--COMBAT
COMMUNICATIONS
033 JOINT TACTICAL 2,674 175,711 -50,000 2,674 125,711
RADIO SYSTEM.
Unobligated [-50,000]
balances.
034 MID-TIER 9,692 -5,000 4,692
NETWORKING
VEHICULAR
RADIO (MNVR).
Unobligated [-5,000]
balances.
035 RADIO TERMINAL 620 17,136 620 17,136
SET, MIDS
LVT(2).
037 AMC CRITICAL 3,081 22,099 3,081 22,099
ITEMS--OPA2.
038 TRACTOR DESK... 3,724 3,724
039 SPIDER APLA 969 969
REMOTE CONTROL
UNIT.
040 SOLDIER 294 294
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM COMM/
ELECTRONICS.
041 TACTICAL 8,344 24,354 8,344 24,354
COMMUNICATIONS
AND PROTECTIVE
SYSTEM.
042 UNIFIED COMMAND 17,445 17,445
SUITE.
043 RADIO, IMPROVED 1,028 1,028
HF (COTS)
FAMILY.
044 FAMILY OF MED 974 22,614 974 22,614
COMM FOR
COMBAT
CASUALTY CARE.
COMM--INTELLIGE
NCE COMM
046 CI AUTOMATION 1,519 1,519
ARCHITECTURE.
047 ARMY CA/MISO 305 12,478 305 12,478
GPF EQUIPMENT.
INFORMATION
SECURITY
050 INFORMATION 2,113 2,113
SYSTEM
SECURITY
PROGRAM-ISSP.
051 COMMUNICATIONS 2,750 69,646 2,750 69,646
SECURITY
(COMSEC).
COMM--LONG HAUL
COMMUNICATIONS
052 BASE SUPPORT 28,913 28,913
COMMUNICATIONS.
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
053 INFORMATION 97,091 97,091
SYSTEMS.
054 DEFENSE MESSAGE 246 246
SYSTEM (DMS).
055 EMERGENCY 5,362 5,362
MANAGEMENT
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
056 INSTALLATION 79,965 79,965
INFO
INFRASTRUCTURE
MOD PROGRAM.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACT INT REL
ACT (TIARA)
060 JTT/CIBS-M..... 870 870
061 PROPHET GROUND. 11 55,896 11 55,896
063 DCGS-A (MIP)... 2,423 128,207 2,423 128,207
064 JOINT TACTICAL 2 5,286 2 5,286
GROUND STATION
(JTAGS).
065 TROJAN (MIP)... 12,614 12,614
066 MOD OF IN-SVC 3,901 3,901
EQUIP (INTEL
SPT) (MIP).
067 CI HUMINT AUTO 358 7,392 358 7,392
REPRTING AND
COLL(CHARCS).
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC
WARFARE (EW)
068 LIGHTWEIGHT 3 24,828 3 24,828
COUNTER MORTAR
RADAR.
070 AIR VIGILANCE 7,000 7,000
(AV).
072 COUNTERINTELLIG 1,285 1,285
ENCE/SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
075 SENTINEL MODS.. 81 44,305 81 44,305
076 NIGHT VISION 9,700 160,901 9,700 160,901
DEVICES.
078 SMALL TACTICAL 1,935 18,520 1,935 18,520
OPTICAL RIFLE
MOUNTED MLRF.
080 INDIRECT FIRE 173 68,296 173 68,296
PROTECTION
FAMILY OF
SYSTEMS.
081 FAMILY OF 1,716 49,205 -15,000 1,716 34,205
WEAPON SIGHTS
(FWS).
Early to [-15,000]
need.
082 ARTILLERY 137 4,896 137 4,896
ACCURACY EQUIP.
083 PROFILER....... 3,115 3,115
084 MOD OF IN-SVC 4,186 4,186
EQUIP
(FIREFINDER
RADARS).
085 JOINT BATTLE 2,622 97,892 -10,000 2,622 87,892
COMMAND--PLATF
ORM (JBC-P).
Schedule [-10,000]
delay.
086 JOINT EFFECTS 41 27,450 41 27,450
TARGETING
SYSTEM (JETS).
087 MOD OF IN-SVC 34 14,085 34 14,085
EQUIP (LLDR).
088 MORTAR FIRE 255 29,040 255 29,040
CONTROL SYSTEM.
089 COUNTERFIRE 13 209,050 -50,000 13 159,050
RADARS.
Excessive [-50,000]
LRIP/
concurrency
costs.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL C2
SYSTEMS
092 FIRE SUPPORT C2 13,823 13,823
FAMILY.
095 AIR & MSL 5 27,374 5 27,374
DEFENSE
PLANNING &
CONTROL SYS.
097 LIFE CYCLE 2,508 2,508
SOFTWARE
SUPPORT (LCSS).
099 NETWORK 21,524 21,524
MANAGEMENT
INITIALIZATION
AND SERVICE.
100 MANEUVER 3,748 95,455 3,748 95,455
CONTROL SYSTEM
(MCS).
101 GLOBAL COMBAT 118,600 118,600
SUPPORT SYSTEM-
ARMY (GCSS-A).
102 INTEGRATED 32,970 32,970
PERSONNEL AND
PAY SYSTEM-
ARMY (IPP.
104 RECONNAISSANCE 56 10,113 56 10,113
AND SURVEYING
INSTRUMENT SET.
ELECT EQUIP--
AUTOMATION
105 ARMY TRAINING 9,015 9,015
MODERNIZATION.
106 AUTOMATED DATA 155,223 155,223
PROCESSING
EQUIP.
107 GENERAL FUND 16,581 16,581
ENTERPRISE
BUSINESS
SYSTEMS FAM.
108 HIGH PERF 65,252 65,252
COMPUTING MOD
PGM (HPCMP).
110 RESERVE 17,631 17,631
COMPONENT
AUTOMATION SYS
(RCAS).
ELECT EQUIP--
AUDIO VISUAL
SYS (A/V)
112 ITEMS LESS THAN 51 5,437 51 5,437
$5M (SURVEYING
EQUIPMENT).
ELECT EQUIP--
SUPPORT
113 PRODUCTION BASE 426 426
SUPPORT (C-E).
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
114A CLASSIFIED 3,707 3,707
PROGRAMS.
CHEMICAL
DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
115 FAMILY OF NON- 937 937
LETHAL
EQUIPMENT
(FNLE).
116 BASE DEFENSE 1,930 1,930
SYSTEMS (BDS).
117 CBRN DEFENSE... 14,506 17,468 14,506 17,468
BRIDGING
EQUIPMENT
119 TACTICAL 6 5,442 6 5,442
BRIDGE, FLOAT-
RIBBON.
120 COMMON BRIDGE 11,013 11,013
TRANSPORTER
(CBT) RECAP.
ENGINEER (NON-
CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
121 GRND STANDOFF 37,649 -4,400 33,249
MINE DETECTN
SYSM
(GSTAMIDS).
Early to [-4,400]
need.
122 HUSKY MOUNTED 84 18,545 84 18,545
DETECTION
SYSTEM (HMDS).
123 ROBOTIC COMBAT 1 4,701 1 4,701
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(RCSS).
124 EOD ROBOTICS 6,346 6,346
SYSTEMS
RECAPITALIZATI
ON.
125 EXPLOSIVE 133 15,856 133 15,856
ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL EQPMT
(EOD EQPMT).
126 REMOTE 4,485 4,485
DEMOLITION
SYSTEMS.
127 < $5M, 92 4,938 92 4,938
COUNTERMINE
EQUIPMENT.
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
128 HEATERS AND 628 9,235 628 9,235
ECU'S.
130 SOLDIER 1 1,677 1 1,677
ENHANCEMENT.
131 PERSONNEL 12,273 16,728 12,273 16,728
RECOVERY
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(PRSS).
132 GROUND SOLDIER 3,581 84,761 3,581 84,761
SYSTEM.
134 FIELD FEEDING 141 15,179 141 15,179
EQUIPMENT.
135 CARGO AERIAL 1,386 28,194 1,386 28,194
DEL &
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE
SYSTEM.
137 FAMILY OF ENGR 336 41,967 336 41,967
COMBAT AND
CONSTRUCTION
SETS.
138 ITEMS LESS THAN 859 20,090 859 20,090
$5M (ENG SPT).
PETROLEUM
EQUIPMENT
139 QUALITY 1,435 1,435
SURVEILLANCE
EQUIPMENT.
140 DISTRIBUTION 599 40,692 599 40,692
SYSTEMS,
PETROLEUM &
WATER.
MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT
141 COMBAT SUPPORT 2,388 46,957 2,388 46,957
MEDICAL.
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
142 MOBILE 60 23,758 60 23,758
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
SYSTEMS.
143 ITEMS LESS THAN 585 2,789 585 2,789
$5.0M (MAINT
EQ).
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
144 GRADER, ROAD 22 5,827 22 5,827
MTZD, HVY, 6X4
(CCE).
145 SCRAPERS, 22 14,926 22 14,926
EARTHMOVING.
147 COMPACTOR...... 617 4,348 617 4,348
148 HYDRAULIC 14 4,938 14 4,938
EXCAVATOR.
149 TRACTOR, FULL 95 34,071 95 34,071
TRACKED.
150 ALL TERRAIN 4 4,938 4 4,938
CRANES.
151 PLANT, ASPHALT 667 667
MIXING.
153 ENHANCED RAPID 14,924 14,924
AIRFIELD
CONSTRUCTION
CAPAP.
154 CONST EQUIP ESP 79 15,933 79 15,933
155 ITEMS LESS THAN 53 6,749 53 6,749
$5.0M (CONST
EQUIP).
RAIL FLOAT
CONTAINERIZATI
ON EQUIPMENT
156 ARMY WATERCRAFT 10,509 10,509
ESP.
157 ITEMS LESS THAN 2,166 2,166
$5.0M (FLOAT/
RAIL).
GENERATORS
158 GENERATORS AND 3,882 115,190 -10,000 3,882 105,190
ASSOCIATED
EQUIP.
Cost [-10,000]
savings
from new
contract.
MATERIAL
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
160 FAMILY OF 146 14,327 146 14,327
FORKLIFTS.
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT
161 COMBAT TRAINING 1 65,062 1 65,062
CENTERS
SUPPORT.
162 TRAINING 43 101,295 43 101,295
DEVICES,
NONSYSTEM.
163 CLOSE COMBAT 13,406 13,406
TACTICAL
TRAINER.
164 AVIATION 14,440 14,440
COMBINED ARMS
TACTICAL
TRAINER.
165 GAMING 10,165 10,165
TECHNOLOGY IN
SUPPORT OF
ARMY TRAINING.
TEST MEASURE
AND DIG
EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
166 CALIBRATION 5,726 5,726
SETS EQUIPMENT.
167 INTEGRATED 1,657 37,482 1,657 37,482
FAMILY OF TEST
EQUIPMENT
(IFTE).
168 TEST EQUIPMENT 415 16,061 415 16,061
MODERNIZATION
(TEMOD).
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
170 RAPID EQUIPPING 2,380 2,380
SOLDIER
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
171 PHYSICAL 30,686 30,686
SECURITY
SYSTEMS (OPA3).
172 BASE LEVEL 1,008 1,008
COMMON
EQUIPMENT.
173 MODIFICATION OF 3,209 98,559 -15,000 3,209 83,559
IN-SVC
EQUIPMENT (OPA-
3).
Early to [-15,000]
need--water
craft C4ISR.
174 PRODUCTION BASE 1,697 1,697
SUPPORT (OTH).
175 SPECIAL 25,394 25,394
EQUIPMENT FOR
USER TESTING.
176 AMC CRITICAL 963 12,975 963 12,975
ITEMS OPA3.
OPA2
180 INITIAL SPARES-- 11 50,032 11 50,032
C&E.
TOTAL 94,760 4,893,634 -192,400 94,760 4,701,234
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
JOINT IMPR
EXPLOSIVE DEV
DEFEAT FUND
STAFF AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
004 OPERATIONS..... 115,058 -115,058 0
Transfer of [-65,558]
JIEDDO to
Overseas
Contingency
Operations.
Unjustified [-49,500]
request.
TOTAL 115,058 -115,058 0
JOINT IMPR
EXPLOSIVE
DEV DEFEAT
FUND.
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
001 EA-18G......... 43,547 5 450,000 5 493,547
Additional [5] [450,000]
EA-18G
aircraft.
005 JOINT STRIKE 2 610,652 2 610,652
FIGHTER CV.
006 ADVANCE 29,400 29,400
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
007 JSF STOVL...... 6 1,200,410 6 1,200,410
008 ADVANCE 143,885 143,885
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
009 V-22 (MEDIUM 19 1,487,000 19 1,487,000
LIFT).
010 ADVANCE 45,920 45,920
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
011 H-1 UPGRADES 26 778,757 26 778,757
(UH-1Y/AH-1Z).
012 ADVANCE 80,926 80,926
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
013 MH-60S (MYP)... 8 210,209 8 210,209
015 MH-60R (MYP)... 29 933,882 -53,400 29 880,482
CVN 73 [-53,400]
Refueling
and Complex
Overhaul
(RCOH).
016 ADVANCE 106,686 106,686
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
017 P-8A POSEIDON.. 8 2,003,327 8 2,003,327
018 ADVANCE 48,457 48,457
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
019 E-2D ADV 4 819,870 4 819,870
HAWKEYE.
020 ADVANCE 225,765 225,765
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
OTHER AIRCRAFT
023 KC-130J........ 1 92,290 1 92,290
026 ADVANCE 37,445 37,445
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
027 MQ-8 UAV....... 40,663 40,663
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
029 EA-6 SERIES.... 10,993 10,993
030 AEA SYSTEMS.... 34,768 34,768
031 AV-8 SERIES.... 65,472 65,472
032 ADVERSARY...... 8,418 8,418
033 F-18 SERIES.... 679,177 679,177
034 H-46 SERIES.... 480 480
036 H-53 SERIES.... 38,159 38,159
037 SH-60 SERIES... 108,850 108,850
038 H-1 SERIES..... 45,033 45,033
039 EP-3 SERIES.... 32,890 18,000 50,890
Obsolescenc [5,000]
e issues.
SIGINT [13,000]
Architectur
e
Modernizati
on Common
Configurati
on.
040 P-3 SERIES..... 2,823 2,823
041 E-2 SERIES..... 21,208 21,208
042 TRAINER A/C 12,608 12,608
SERIES.
044 C-130 SERIES... 40,378 40,378
045 FEWSG.......... 640 640
046 CARGO/TRANSPORT 4,635 4,635
A/C SERIES.
047 E-6 SERIES..... 212,876 212,876
048 EXECUTIVE 71,328 71,328
HELICOPTERS
SERIES.
049 SPECIAL PROJECT 21,317 21,317
AIRCRAFT.
050 T-45 SERIES.... 90,052 90,052
051 POWER PLANT 19,094 19,094
CHANGES.
052 JPATS SERIES... 1,085 1,085
054 COMMON ECM 155,644 155,644
EQUIPMENT.
055 COMMON AVIONICS 157,531 157,531
CHANGES.
056 COMMON 1,958 1,958
DEFENSIVE
WEAPON SYSTEM.
057 ID SYSTEMS..... 38,880 38,880
058 P-8 SERIES..... 29,797 29,797
059 MAGTF EW FOR 14,770 14,770
AVIATION.
060 MQ-8 SERIES.... 8,741 8,741
061 RQ-7 SERIES.... 2,542 2,542
062 V-22 (TILT/ 135,584 135,584
ROTOR ACFT)
OSPREY.
063 F-35 STOVL 285,968 285,968
SERIES.
064 F-35 CV SERIES. 20,502 20,502
AIRCRAFT SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
065 SPARES AND 1,229,651 -3,000 1,226,651
REPAIR PARTS.
Program [-3,000]
decrease.
AIRCRAFT
SUPPORT EQUIP
& FACILITIES
066 COMMON GROUND 418,355 418,355
EQUIPMENT.
067 AIRCRAFT 23,843 23,843
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
068 WAR CONSUMABLES 15,939 15,939
069 OTHER 5,630 5,630
PRODUCTION
CHARGES.
070 SPECIAL SUPPORT 65,839 65,839
EQUIPMENT.
071 FIRST 1,768 1,768
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
TOTAL 103 13,074,317 5 411,600 108 13,485,917
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
001 TRIDENT II MODS 1,190,455 1,190,455
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
002 MISSILE 5,671 5,671
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
STRATEGIC
MISSILES
003 TOMAHAWK....... 100 194,258 96 82,000 196 276,258
Minimum [96] [82,000]
sustaining
rate
increase.
TACTICAL
MISSILES
004 AMRAAM......... 32,165 -10,000 22,165
Program [-10,000]
decrease.
005 SIDEWINDER..... 167 73,928 167 73,928
006 JSOW........... 200 130,759 200 130,759
007 STANDARD 110 445,836 110 445,836
MISSILE.
008 RAM............ 90 80,792 90 80,792
011 STAND OFF 14 1,810 14 1,810
PRECISION
GUIDED
MUNITIONS
(SOPGM).
012 AERIAL TARGETS. 48,046 48,046
013 OTHER MISSILE 3,295 3,295
SUPPORT.
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
014 ESSM........... 104 119,434 104 119,434
015 HARM MODS...... 111,739 111,739
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
016 WEAPONS 2,531 2,531
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
017 FLEET SATELLITE 208,700 -9,000 199,700
COMM FOLLOW-ON.
Excess to [-9,000]
need.
ORDNANCE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
018 ORDNANCE 73,211 73,211
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
019 SSTD........... 6,562 6,562
020 MK-48 TORPEDO.. 14,153 14,153
021 ASW TARGETS.... 2,515 2,515
MOD OF
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
022 MK-54 TORPEDO 98,928 98,928
MODS.
023 MK-48 TORPEDO 46,893 46,893
ADCAP MODS.
024 QUICKSTRIKE 6,966 6,966
MINE.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
025 TORPEDO SUPPORT 52,670 52,670
EQUIPMENT.
026 ASW RANGE 3,795 3,795
SUPPORT.
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
027 FIRST 3,692 3,692
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
028 SMALL ARMS AND 13,240 13,240
WEAPONS.
MODIFICATION OF
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
029 CIWS MODS...... 75,108 75,108
030 COAST GUARD 18,948 18,948
WEAPONS.
031 GUN MOUNT MODS. 62,651 62,651
033 AIRBORNE MINE 15,006 15,006
NEUTRALIZATION
SYSTEMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
035 SPARES AND 74,188 74,188
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 785 3,217,945 96 63,000 881 3,280,945
WEAPONS
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY &
MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
001 GENERAL PURPOSE 107,069 107,069
BOMBS.
002 AIRBORNE 70,396 70,396
ROCKETS, ALL
TYPES.
003 MACHINE GUN 20,284 20,284
AMMUNITION.
004 PRACTICE BOMBS. 26,701 26,701
005 CARTRIDGES & 53,866 53,866
CART ACTUATED
DEVICES.
006 AIR EXPENDABLE 59,294 59,294
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
007 JATOS.......... 2,766 2,766
008 LRLAP 6" LONG 113,092 113,092
RANGE ATTACK
PROJECTILE.
009 5 INCH/54 GUN 35,702 35,702
AMMUNITION.
010 INTERMEDIATE 36,475 36,475
CALIBER GUN
AMMUNITION.
011 OTHER SHIP GUN 43,906 43,906
AMMUNITION.
012 SMALL ARMS & 51,535 51,535
LANDING PARTY
AMMO.
013 PYROTECHNIC AND 11,652 11,652
DEMOLITION.
014 AMMUNITION LESS 4,473 4,473
THAN $5
MILLION.
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
015 SMALL ARMS 31,708 31,708
AMMUNITION.
016 LINEAR CHARGES, 692 692
ALL TYPES.
017 40 MM, ALL 13,630 13,630
TYPES.
018 60MM, ALL TYPES 2,261 2,261
019 81MM, ALL TYPES 1,496 1,496
020 120MM, ALL 14,855 14,855
TYPES.
022 GRENADES, ALL 4,000 4,000
TYPES.
023 ROCKETS, ALL 16,853 16,853
TYPES.
024 ARTILLERY, ALL 14,772 14,772
TYPES.
026 FUZE, ALL TYPES 9,972 9,972
027 NON LETHALS.... 998 998
028 AMMO 12,319 12,319
MODERNIZATION.
029 ITEMS LESS THAN 11,178 11,178
$5 MILLION.
TOTAL 771,945 771,945
PROCUREMEN
T OF AMMO,
NAVY & MC.
SHIPBUILDING &
CONVERSION,
NAVY
OTHER WARSHIPS
001 CARRIER 1,300,000 1,300,000
REPLACEMENT
PROGRAM.
002 VIRGINIA CLASS 2 3,553,254 2 3,553,254
SUBMARINE.
003 ADVANCE 2,330,325 2,330,325
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
004 CVN REFUELING 1 483,600 1 483,600
OVERHAULS.
CVN 73 [1] [483,600]
Refueling
and Complex
Overhaul
(RCOH).
006 DDG 1000....... 419,532 -54,000 365,532
DDG-1000... [-54,000]
007 DDG-51......... 2 2,671,415 2 2,671,415
008 ADVANCE 134,039 134,039
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
009 LITTORAL COMBAT 3 1,427,049 -1 -450,000 2 977,049
SHIP.
Reduction [-1] [-450,000]
of 1 LCS.
009A ADVANCE 100,000 100,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
Program [100,000]
requirement.
AMPHIBIOUS
SHIPS
010 LPD-17......... 12,565 1 800,000 1 812,565
Incremental [1] [800,000]
funding for
LPD-28.
014 ADVANCE 29,093 29,093
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
015 JOINT HIGH 4,590 4,590
SPEED VESSEL.
AUXILIARIES,
CRAFT AND
PRIOR YR
PROGRAM COST
016 MOORED TRAINING 1 737,268 -220,000 1 517,268
SHIP.
Moored [-220,000]
Training
Ship.
017 ADVANCE 64,388 64,388
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
018 OUTFITTING..... 546,104 546,104
019 SHIP TO SHORE 2 123,233 2 123,233
CONNECTOR.
020 LCAC SLEP...... 2 40,485 2 40,485
021 COMPLETION OF 1,007,285 1,007,285
PY
SHIPBUILDING
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 12 14,400,625 1 659,600 13 15,060,225
SHIPBUILDI
NG &
CONVERSION
, NAVY.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
SHIP PROPULSION
EQUIPMENT
001 LM-2500 GAS 7,822 7,822
TURBINE.
002 ALLISON 501K 2,155 2,155
GAS TURBINE.
003 HYBRID ELECTRIC 22,704 -7,000 15,704
DRIVE (HED).
Hybrid [-7,000]
Electric
Drive.
GENERATORS
004 SURFACE 29,120 -7,000 22,120
COMBATANT HM&E.
Surface [-7,000]
Combatant
HM&E.
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT
005 OTHER 45,431 45,431
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT.
PERISCOPES
006 SUB PERISCOPES 60,970 -8,300 52,670
& IMAGING
EQUIP.
Submarine [-8,300]
Periscopes
and Imaging
Equipment.
OTHER SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT
007 DDG MOD........ 338,569 338,569
008 FIREFIGHTING 15,486 15,486
EQUIPMENT.
009 COMMAND AND 2,219 2,219
CONTROL
SWITCHBOARD.
010 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE 17,928 17,928
011 LCC 19/20 22,025 22,025
EXTENDED
SERVICE LIFE
PROGRAM.
012 POLLUTION 12,607 12,607
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT.
013 SUBMARINE 16,492 16,492
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
014 VIRGINIA CLASS 74,129 74,129
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
015 LCS CLASS 36,206 36,206
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
016 SUBMARINE 37,352 37,352
BATTERIES.
017 LPD CLASS 49,095 49,095
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
018 ELECTRONIC DRY 2,996 2,996
AIR.
019 STRATEGIC 11,558 11,558
PLATFORM
SUPPORT EQUIP.
020 DSSP EQUIPMENT. 5,518 5,518
022 LCAC........... 7,158 7,158
023 UNDERWATER EOD 58,783 -5,000 53,783
PROGRAMS.
Underwater [-5,000]
EOD
programs.
024 ITEMS LESS THAN 68,748 68,748
$5 MILLION.
025 CHEMICAL 2,937 2,937
WARFARE
DETECTORS.
026 SUBMARINE LIFE 8,385 8,385
SUPPORT SYSTEM.
REACTOR PLANT
EQUIPMENT
027 REACTOR POWER 298,200 298,200
UNITS.
CVN 73 [298,200]
Refueling
and Complex
Overhaul
(RCOH).
028 REACTOR 288,822 288,822
COMPONENTS.
OCEAN
ENGINEERING
029 DIVING AND 10,572 10,572
SALVAGE
EQUIPMENT.
SMALL BOATS
030 STANDARD BOATS. 129,784 -49,000 80,784
Standard [-49,000]
Boats.
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT
031 OTHER SHIPS 17,152 17,152
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT.
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
EQUIPMENT
032 OPERATING 39,409 39,409
FORCES IPE.
OTHER SHIP
SUPPORT
033 NUCLEAR 118,129 118,129
ALTERATIONS.
034 LCS COMMON 37,413 37,413
MISSION
MODULES
EQUIPMENT.
035 LCS MCM MISSION 15,270 15,270
MODULES.
036 LCS ASW MISSION 2,729 2,729
MODULES.
037 LCS SUW MISSION 44,208 44,208
MODULES.
038 REMOTE 42,276 42,276
MINEHUNTING
SYSTEM (RMS).
SHIP SONARS
040 SPQ-9B RADAR... 28,007 28,007
041 AN/SQQ-89 SURF 79,802 79,802
ASW COMBAT
SYSTEM.
042 SSN ACOUSTICS.. 165,655 165,655
043 UNDERSEA 9,487 9,487
WARFARE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
044 SONAR SWITCHES 11,621 11,621
AND
TRANSDUCERS.
ASW ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
046 SUBMARINE 24,221 24,221
ACOUSTIC
WARFARE SYSTEM.
047 SSTD........... 12,051 12,051
048 FIXED 170,831 170,831
SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEM.
049 SURTASS........ 9,619 9,619
050 MARITIME PATROL 14,390 14,390
AND
RECONNSAISANCE
FORCE.
ELECTRONIC
WARFARE
EQUIPMENT
051 AN/SLQ-32...... 214,582 214,582
RECONNAISSANCE
EQUIPMENT
052 SHIPBOARD IW 124,862 124,862
EXPLOIT.
053 AUTOMATED 164 164
IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM (AIS).
SUBMARINE
SURVEILLANCE
EQUIPMENT
054 SUBMARINE 45,362 45,362
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT PROG.
OTHER SHIP
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
055 COOPERATIVE 33,939 33,939
ENGAGEMENT
CAPABILITY.
056 TRUSTED 324 324
INFORMATION
SYSTEM (TIS).
057 NAVAL TACTICAL 18,192 18,192
COMMAND
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(NTCSS).
058 ATDLS.......... 16,768 16,768
059 NAVY COMMAND 5,219 5,219
AND CONTROL
SYSTEM (NCCS).
060 MINESWEEPING 42,108 42,108
SYSTEM
REPLACEMENT.
062 NAVSTAR GPS 15,232 15,232
RECEIVERS
(SPACE).
063 AMERICAN FORCES 4,524 4,524
RADIO AND TV
SERVICE.
064 STRATEGIC 6,382 6,382
PLATFORM
SUPPORT EQUIP.
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT
065 OTHER TRAINING 46,122 46,122
EQUIPMENT.
AVIATION
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
066 MATCALS........ 16,999 16,999
067 SHIPBOARD AIR 9,366 9,366
TRAFFIC
CONTROL.
068 AUTOMATIC 21,357 21,357
CARRIER
LANDING SYSTEM.
069 NATIONAL AIR 26,639 26,639
SPACE SYSTEM.
070 FLEET AIR 9,214 9,214
TRAFFIC
CONTROL
SYSTEMS.
071 LANDING SYSTEMS 13,902 13,902
072 ID SYSTEMS..... 34,901 34,901
073 NAVAL MISSION 13,950 13,950
PLANNING
SYSTEMS.
OTHER SHORE
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
074 DEPLOYABLE 1,205 1,205
JOINT COMMAND
& CONTROL.
075 MARITIME 3,447 3,447
INTEGRATED
BROADCAST
SYSTEM.
076 TACTICAL/MOBILE 16,766 16,766
C4I SYSTEMS.
077 DCGS-N......... 23,649 23,649
078 CANES.......... 357,589 357,589
079 RADIAC......... 8,343 8,343
080 CANES-INTELL... 65,015 65,015
081 GPETE.......... 6,284 6,284
082 INTEG COMBAT 4,016 4,016
SYSTEM TEST
FACILITY.
083 EMI CONTROL 4,113 4,113
INSTRUMENTATIO
N.
084 ITEMS LESS THAN 45,053 45,053
$5 MILLION.
SHIPBOARD
COMMUNICATIONS
085 SHIPBOARD 14,410 14,410
TACTICAL
COMMUNICATIONS.
086 SHIP 20,830 20,830
COMMUNICATIONS
AUTOMATION.
088 COMMUNICATIONS 14,145 14,145
ITEMS UNDER
$5M.
SUBMARINE
COMMUNICATIONS
089 SUBMARINE 11,057 11,057
BROADCAST
SUPPORT.
090 SUBMARINE 67,852 67,852
COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT.
SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
091 SATELLITE 13,218 50 13,268
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS.
CVN 73 [50]
Refueling
and Complex
Overhaul
(RCOH).
092 NAVY MULTIBAND 272,076 272,076
TERMINAL (NMT).
SHORE
COMMUNICATIONS
093 JCS 4,369 4,369
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT.
094 ELECTRICAL 1,402 1,402
POWER SYSTEMS.
CRYPTOGRAPHIC
EQUIPMENT
095 INFO SYSTEMS 110,766 110,766
SECURITY
PROGRAM (ISSP).
096 MIO INTEL 979 979
EXPLOITATION
TEAM.
CRYPTOLOGIC
EQUIPMENT
097 CRYPTOLOGIC 11,502 11,502
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIP.
OTHER
ELECTRONIC
SUPPORT
098 COAST GUARD 2,967 2,967
EQUIPMENT.
SONOBUOYS
100 SONOBUOYS--ALL 182,946 182,946
TYPES.
AIRCRAFT
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
101 WEAPONS RANGE 47,944 47,944
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
103 AIRCRAFT 76,683 76,683
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
106 METEOROLOGICAL 12,575 300 12,875
EQUIPMENT.
CVN 73 [300]
Refueling
and Complex
Overhaul
(RCOH).
107 DCRS/DPL....... 1,415 1,415
109 AIRBORNE MINE 23,152 23,152
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
114 AVIATION 52,555 52,555
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
SHIP GUN SYSTEM
EQUIPMENT
115 SHIP GUN 5,572 5,572
SYSTEMS
EQUIPMENT.
SHIP MISSILE
SYSTEMS
EQUIPMENT
118 SHIP MISSILE 165,769 165,769
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
123 TOMAHAWK 61,462 61,462
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
FBM SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
126 STRATEGIC 229,832 229,832
MISSILE
SYSTEMS EQUIP.
ASW SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
127 SSN COMBAT 66,020 66,020
CONTROL
SYSTEMS.
128 ASW SUPPORT 7,559 7,559
EQUIPMENT.
OTHER ORDNANCE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
132 EXPLOSIVE 20,619 20,619
ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL EQUIP.
133 ITEMS LESS THAN 11,251 11,251
$5 MILLION.
OTHER
EXPENDABLE
ORDNANCE
137 TRAINING DEVICE 84,080 84,080
MODS.
CIVIL
ENGINEERING
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
138 PASSENGER 2,282 2,282
CARRYING
VEHICLES.
139 GENERAL PURPOSE 547 547
TRUCKS.
140 CONSTRUCTION & 8,949 8,949
MAINTENANCE
EQUIP.
141 FIRE FIGHTING 14,621 14,621
EQUIPMENT.
142 TACTICAL 957 957
VEHICLES.
143 AMPHIBIOUS 8,187 8,187
EQUIPMENT.
144 POLLUTION 2,942 2,942
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT.
145 ITEMS UNDER $5 17,592 17,592
MILLION.
146 PHYSICAL 1,177 1,177
SECURITY
VEHICLES.
SUPPLY SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
147 MATERIALS 10,937 10,937
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT.
148 OTHER SUPPLY 10,374 10,374
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
149 FIRST 5,668 5,668
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
150 SPECIAL PURPOSE 90,921 90,921
SUPPLY SYSTEMS.
TRAINING
DEVICES
151 TRAINING 22,046 22,046
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
COMMAND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
152 COMMAND SUPPORT 24,208 24,208
EQUIPMENT.
153 EDUCATION 874 874
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
154 MEDICAL SUPPORT 2,634 2,634
EQUIPMENT.
156 NAVAL MIP 3,573 3,573
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
157 OPERATING 3,997 3,997
FORCES SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
158 C4ISR EQUIPMENT 9,638 9,638
159 ENVIRONMENTAL 21,001 21,001
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
160 PHYSICAL 94,957 94,957
SECURITY
EQUIPMENT.
161 ENTERPRISE 87,214 87,214
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
OTHER
164 NEXT GENERATION 116,165 116,165
ENTERPRISE
SERVICE.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
164A CLASSIFIED 10,847 10,847
PROGRAMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
165 SPARES AND 325,084 50 325,134
REPAIR PARTS.
CVN 73 [50]
Refueling
and Complex
Overhaul
(RCOH).
TOTAL 5,975,828 222,300 6,198,128
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT,
MARINE CORPS
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
001 AAV7A1 PIP..... 16,756 16,756
002 LAV PIP........ 77,736 77,736
ARTILLERY AND
OTHER WEAPONS
003 EXPEDITIONARY 5,742 -5,100 642
FIRE SUPPORT
SYSTEM.
Per Marine [-5,100]
Corps
excess to
need.
004 155MM 4,532 4,532
LIGHTWEIGHT
TOWED HOWITZER.
005 HIGH MOBILITY 19,474 19,474
ARTILLERY
ROCKET SYSTEM.
006 WEAPONS AND 7,250 7,250
COMBAT
VEHICLES UNDER
$5 MILLION.
OTHER SUPPORT
007 MODIFICATION 21,909 21,909
KITS.
008 WEAPONS 3,208 3,208
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM.
GUIDED MISSILES
009 GROUND BASED 31,439 31,439
AIR DEFENSE.
010 JAVELIN........ 343 343
011 FOLLOW ON TO 4,995 4,995
SMAW.
012 ANTI-ARMOR 1,589 1,589
WEAPONS SYSTEM-
HEAVY (AAWS-H).
OTHER SUPPORT
013 MODIFICATION 5,134 5,134
KITS.
COMMAND AND
CONTROL
SYSTEMS
014 UNIT OPERATIONS 9,178 9,178
CENTER.
015 COMMON AVIATION 12,272 12,272
COMMAND AND
CONTROL SYSTEM
(C.
REPAIR AND TEST
EQUIPMENT
016 REPAIR AND TEST 30,591 30,591
EQUIPMENT.
OTHER SUPPORT
(TEL)
017 COMBAT SUPPORT 2,385 2,385
SYSTEM.
COMMAND AND
CONTROL SYSTEM
(NON-TEL)
019 ITEMS UNDER $5 4,205 4,205
MILLION (COMM
& ELEC).
020 AIR OPERATIONS 8,002 8,002
C2 SYSTEMS.
RADAR +
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
021 RADAR SYSTEMS.. 19,595 19,595
022 U.............. 2 89,230 2 89,230
023 RQ-21 UAS...... 3 70,565 3 70,565
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
024 FIRE SUPPORT 11,860 11,860
SYSTEM.
025 INTELLIGENCE 44,340 44,340
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
028 RQ-11 UAV...... 2,737 2,737
030 DCGS-MC........ 20,620 20,620
OTHER COMM/ELEC
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
031 NIGHT VISION 9,798 9,798
EQUIPMENT.
OTHER SUPPORT
(NON-TEL)
032 NEXT GENERATION 2,073 2,073
ENTERPRISE
NETWORK (NGEN).
033 COMMON COMPUTER 33,570 33,570
RESOURCES.
034 COMMAND POST 38,186 38,186
SYSTEMS.
035 RADIO SYSTEMS.. 64,494 64,494
036 COMM SWITCHING 72,956 72,956
& CONTROL
SYSTEMS.
037 COMM & ELEC 43,317 43,317
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUPPORT.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
037A CLASSIFIED 2,498 2,498
PROGRAMS.
ADMINISTRATIVE
VEHICLES
038 COMMERCIAL 332 332
PASSENGER
VEHICLES.
039 COMMERCIAL 11,035 11,035
CARGO VEHICLES.
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
040 5/4T TRUCK 57,255 -20,000 37,255
HMMWV (MYP).
Early to [-20,000]
need.
041 MOTOR TRANSPORT 938 938
MODIFICATIONS.
044 JOINT LIGHT 7 7,500 7 7,500
TACTICAL
VEHICLE.
045 FAMILY OF 10,179 10,179
TACTICAL
TRAILERS.
OTHER SUPPORT
046 ITEMS LESS THAN 11,023 11,023
$5 MILLION.
ENGINEER AND
OTHER
EQUIPMENT
047 ENVIRONMENTAL 994 994
CONTROL EQUIP
ASSORT.
048 BULK LIQUID 1,256 1,256
EQUIPMENT.
049 TACTICAL FUEL 3,750 3,750
SYSTEMS.
050 POWER EQUIPMENT 8,985 8,985
ASSORTED.
051 AMPHIBIOUS 4,418 4,418
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
052 EOD SYSTEMS.... 6,528 6,528
MATERIALS
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
053 PHYSICAL 26,510 26,510
SECURITY
EQUIPMENT.
054 GARRISON MOBILE 1,910 1,910
ENGINEER
EQUIPMENT
(GMEE).
055 MATERIAL 8,807 8,807
HANDLING EQUIP.
056 FIRST 128 128
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
GENERAL
PROPERTY
058 TRAINING 3,412 3,412
DEVICES.
059 CONTAINER 1,662 1,662
FAMILY.
060 FAMILY OF 3,669 3,669
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT.
OTHER SUPPORT
062 ITEMS LESS THAN 4,272 4,272
$5 MILLION.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
063 SPARES AND 16,210 16,210
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 12 983,352 -25,100 12 958,252
PROCUREMEN
T, MARINE
CORPS.
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
TACTICAL FORCES
001 F-35........... 26 3,553,046 26 3,553,046
002 ADVANCE 291,880 291,880
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
TACTICAL
AIRLIFT
003 KC-46A TANKER.. 7 1,582,685 -1 -226,100 6 1,356,585
LRIP 1 Ramp [-1] [-226,100]
Rate.
OTHER AIRLIFT
004 C-130J......... 7 482,396 7 482,396
005 ADVANCE 140,000 140,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
006 HC-130J........ 4 332,024 4 332,024
007 ADVANCE 50,000 50,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
008 MC-130J........ 2 190,971 2 190,971
009 ADVANCE 80,000 80,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
MISSION SUPPORT
AIRCRAFT
012 CIVIL AIR 6 2,562 6 2,562
PATROL A/C.
OTHER AIRCRAFT
013 TARGET DRONES.. 37 98,576 37 98,576
016 RQ-4........... 54,475 -10,000 44,475
MPRTIP [-10,000]
Sensor
Trainer
reduction.
017 AC-130J........ 1 1
018 MQ-9........... 12 240,218 8 120,000 20 360,218
Program [8] [120,000]
increase.
STRATEGIC
AIRCRAFT
020 B-2A........... 23,865 23,865
021 B-1B........... 140,252 140,252
022 B-52........... 180,148 180,148
023 LARGE AIRCRAFT 13,159 13,159
INFRARED
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
TACTICAL
AIRCRAFT
025 F-15........... 387,314 387,314
026 F-16........... 12,336 12,336
027 F-22A.......... 180,207 180,207
028 F-35 187,646 187,646
MODIFICATIONS.
029 ADVANCE 28,500 28,500
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
AIRLIFT
AIRCRAFT
030 C-5............ 14,731 14,731
031 C-5M........... 331,466 -50,000 281,466
Program [-50,000]
execution
delay.
033 C-17A.......... 127,494 127,494
034 C-21........... 264 264
035 C-32A.......... 8,767 8,767
036 C-37A.......... 18,457 18,457
TRAINER
AIRCRAFT
038 GLIDER MODS.... 132 132
039 T-6............ 14,486 14,486
040 T-1............ 7,650 7,650
041 T-38........... 34,845 34,845
OTHER AIRCRAFT
044 KC-10A (ATCA).. 34,313 34,313
045 C-12........... 1,960 1,960
048 VC-25A MOD..... 1,072 1,072
049 C-40........... 7,292 7,292
050 C-130.......... 35,869 73,802 109,671
8.33kHz [-7,447]
radios.
C-130 8- [30,000]
Bladed
Propeller
upgrade.
C-130 AMP.. [35,800]
CVR/DVR.... [-7,151]
T-56 3.5 [22,600]
Engine Mod.
051 C-130J MODS.... 7,919 7,919
052 C-135.......... 63,568 63,568
053 COMPASS CALL 57,828 57,828
MODS.
054 RC-135......... 152,746 152,746
055 E-3............ 16,491 12,857 29,348
Program [12,857]
increase.
056 E-4............ 22,341 22,341
058 AIRBORNE 160,284 160,284
WARNING AND
CONTROL SYSTEM.
059 FAMILY OF 32,026 32,026
BEYOND LINE-OF-
SIGHT
TERMINALS.
060 H-1............ 8,237 8,237
061 H-60........... 60,110 60,110
062 RQ-4 MODS...... 21,354 21,354
063 HC/MC-130 1,902 1,902
MODIFICATIONS.
064 OTHER AIRCRAFT. 32,106 32,106
065 MQ-1 MODS...... 4,755 -3,200 1,555
Program [-3,200]
reduction.
066 MQ-9 MODS...... 155,445 155,445
069 CV-22 MODS..... 74,874 74,874
069A EJECTION SEAT 7,000 7,000
RELIABILITY
IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
Initial [7,000]
aircraft
installatio
n.
AIRCRAFT SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
070 INITIAL SPARES/ 466,562 -42,030 424,532
REPAIR PARTS.
Program [-42,030]
decrease.
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
071 AIRCRAFT 22,470 22,470
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP.
POST PRODUCTION
SUPPORT
074 B-2A........... 44,793 44,793
075 B-52........... 5,249 5,249
077 C-17A.......... 20,110 -5,000 15,110
Program [-5,000]
execution
delay.
078 CV-22 POST 16,931 16,931
PRODUCTION
SUPPORT.
080 C-135.......... 4,414 4,414
081 F-15........... 1,122 1,122
082 F-16........... 10,994 10,994
083 F-22A.......... 5,929 5,929
084 OTHER AIRCRAFT. 27 27
INDUSTRIAL
PREPAREDNESS
085 INDUSTRIAL 21,363 21,363
RESPONSIVENESS.
WAR CONSUMABLES
086 WAR CONSUMABLES 82,906 82,906
OTHER
PRODUCTION
CHARGES
087 OTHER 1,007,276 1,007,276
PRODUCTION
CHARGES.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
087A CLASSIFIED 69,380 69,380
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 101 11,542,571 7 -122,671 108 11,419,900
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
MISSILE
REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT--BAL
LISTIC
001 MISSILE 80,187 80,187
REPLACEMENT EQ-
BALLISTIC.
TACTICAL
003 JOINT AIR- 224 337,438 224 337,438
SURFACE
STANDOFF
MISSILE.
004 SIDEWINDER (AIM- 303 132,995 303 132,995
9X).
005 AMRAAM......... 200 329,600 200 329,600
006 PREDATOR 283 33,878 283 33,878
HELLFIRE
MISSILE.
007 SMALL DIAMETER 246 70,578 246 70,578
BOMB.
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
008 INDUSTR'L 749 749
PREPAREDNS/POL
PREVENTION.
CLASS IV
009 MM III 28,477 28,477
MODIFICATIONS.
010 AGM-65D 276 276
MAVERICK.
011 AGM-88A HARM... 297 297
012 AIR LAUNCH 16,083 16,083
CRUISE MISSILE
(ALCM).
013 SMALL DIAMETER 6,924 6,924
BOMB.
MISSILE SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
014 INITIAL SPARES/ 87,366 87,366
REPAIR PARTS.
SPACE PROGRAMS
015 ADVANCED EHF... 298,890 298,890
016 WIDEBAND 38,971 -3,000 35,971
GAPFILLER
SATELLITES(SPA
CE).
Unjustified [-3,000]
growth.
017 GPS III SPACE 1 235,397 1 235,397
SEGMENT.
018 ADVANCE 57,000 57,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
019 SPACEBORNE 16,201 16,201
EQUIP (COMSEC).
020 GLOBAL 52,090 52,090
POSITIONING
(SPACE).
021 DEF 87,000 87,000
METEOROLOGICAL
SAT
PROG(SPACE).
022 EVOLVED 750,143 750,143
EXPENDABLE
LAUNCH VEH
(INFRAST.).
023 EVOLVED 3 630,903 135,000 3 765,903
EXPENDABLE
LAUNCH
VEH(SPACE).
DMSP 20 [135,000]
launch/
Additional
competition
launch.
024 SBIR HIGH 450,884 450,884
(SPACE).
SPECIAL
PROGRAMS
028 SPECIAL UPDATE 60,179 60,179
PROGRAMS.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
028A CLASSIFIED 888,000 888,000
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 1,260 4,690,506 132,000 1,260 4,822,506
MISSILE
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION,
AIR FORCE
ROCKETS
001 ROCKETS........ 4,696 4,696
CARTRIDGES
002 CARTRIDGES..... 133,271 133,271
BOMBS
003 PRACTICE BOMBS. 31,998 31,998
004 GENERAL PURPOSE 148,614 148,614
BOMBS.
005 JOINT DIRECT 2,973 101,400 2,973 101,400
ATTACK
MUNITION.
OTHER ITEMS
006 CAD/PAD........ 29,989 29,989
007 EXPLOSIVE 6,925 6,925
ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL (EOD).
008 SPARES AND 494 494
REPAIR PARTS.
009 MODIFICATIONS.. 1,610 1,610
010 ITEMS LESS THAN 4,237 4,237
$5 MILLION.
FLARES
011 FLARES......... 86,101 86,101
FUZES
012 FUZES.......... 103,417 103,417
SMALL ARMS
013 SMALL ARMS..... 24,648 24,648
TOTAL 2,973 677,400 2,973 677,400
PROCUREMEN
T OF
AMMUNITION
, AIR
FORCE.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
PASSENGER
CARRYING
VEHICLES
001 PASSENGER 6,528 -4,000 2,528
CARRYING
VEHICLES.
Program [-4,000]
reduction.
CARGO AND
UTILITY
VEHICLES
002 MEDIUM TACTICAL 7,639 -5,000 2,639
VEHICLE.
Program [-5,000]
reduction.
003 CAP VEHICLES... 961 961
004 ITEMS LESS THAN 11,027 -6,000 5,027
$5 MILLION.
Program [-6,000]
reduction.
SPECIAL PURPOSE
VEHICLES
005 SECURITY AND 4,447 4,447
TACTICAL
VEHICLES.
006 ITEMS LESS THAN 693 693
$5 MILLION.
FIRE FIGHTING
EQUIPMENT
007 FIRE FIGHTING/ 10,152 10,152
CRASH RESCUE
VEHICLES.
MATERIALS
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
008 ITEMS LESS THAN 15,108 -10,000 5,108
$5 MILLION.
Program [-10,000]
reduction.
BASE
MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
009 RUNWAY SNOW 10,212 -4,000 6,212
REMOV &
CLEANING EQUIP.
Program [-4,000]
reduction.
010 ITEMS LESS THAN 57,049 -25,000 32,049
$5 MILLION.
Program [-25,000]
reduction.
COMM SECURITY
EQUIPMENT(COMS
EC)
011 COMSEC 106,182 106,182
EQUIPMENT.
012 MODIFICATIONS 1,363 1,363
(COMSEC).
INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAMS
013 INTELLIGENCE 2,832 2,832
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT.
014 INTELLIGENCE 32,329 32,329
COMM EQUIPMENT.
016 MISSION 15,649 15,649
PLANNING
SYSTEMS.
ELECTRONICS
PROGRAMS
017 AIR TRAFFIC 42,200 42,200
CONTROL &
LANDING SYS.
018 NATIONAL 6,333 6,333
AIRSPACE
SYSTEM.
019 BATTLE CONTROL 2,708 2,708
SYSTEM--FIXED.
020 THEATER AIR 50,033 -10,000 40,033
CONTROL SYS
IMPROVEMENTS.
Program [-10,000]
reduction.
021 WEATHER 16,348 16,348
OBSERVATION
FORECAST.
022 STRATEGIC 139,984 139,984
COMMAND AND
CONTROL.
023 CHEYENNE 20,101 20,101
MOUNTAIN
COMPLEX.
026 INTEGRATED 9,060 9,060
STRAT PLAN &
ANALY NETWORK
(ISPAN).
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
027 GENERAL 39,100 39,100
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
028 AF GLOBAL 19,010 19,010
COMMAND &
CONTROL SYS.
029 MOBILITY 11,462 11,462
COMMAND AND
CONTROL.
030 AIR FORCE 37,426 37,426
PHYSICAL
SECURITY
SYSTEM.
031 COMBAT TRAINING 26,634 26,634
RANGES.
032 MINIMUM 1,289 1,289
ESSENTIAL
EMERGENCY COMM
N.
033 C3 11,508 11,508
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
034 GCSS-AF FOS.... 3,670 3,670
035 DEFENSE 15,298 15,298
ENTERPRISE
ACCOUNTING AND
MGMT SYSTEM.
036 THEATER BATTLE 9,565 9,565
MGT C2 SYSTEM.
037 AIR & SPACE 25,772 25,772
OPERATIONS CTR-
WPN SYS.
AIR FORCE
COMMUNICATIONS
038 INFORMATION 81,286 31,300 112,586
TRANSPORT
SYSTEMS.
Air Force [31,300]
requested
program
transfer
from AFNET.
039 AFNET.......... 122,228 -31,300 90,928
Air Force [-31,300]
requested
program
transfer to
BITI.
041 USCENTCOM...... 16,342 16,342
SPACE PROGRAMS
042 FAMILY OF 60,230 60,230
BEYOND LINE-OF-
SIGHT
TERMINALS.
043 SPACE BASED IR 26,100 26,100
SENSOR PGM
SPACE.
044 NAVSTAR GPS 2,075 2,075
SPACE.
045 NUDET DETECTION 4,656 4,656
SYS SPACE.
046 AF SATELLITE 54,630 54,630
CONTROL
NETWORK SPACE.
047 SPACELIFT RANGE 69,713 69,713
SYSTEM SPACE.
048 MILSATCOM SPACE 41,355 41,355
049 SPACE MODS 31,722 31,722
SPACE.
050 COUNTERSPACE 61,603 61,603
SYSTEM.
ORGANIZATION
AND BASE
051 TACTICAL C-E 50,335 50,335
EQUIPMENT.
053 RADIO EQUIPMENT 14,846 14,846
054 CCTV/ 3,635 3,635
AUDIOVISUAL
EQUIPMENT.
055 BASE COMM 79,607 79,607
INFRASTRUCTURE.
MODIFICATIONS
056 COMM ELECT MODS 105,398 105,398
PERSONAL SAFETY
& RESCUE EQUIP
057 NIGHT VISION 12,577 12,577
GOGGLES.
058 ITEMS LESS THAN 31,209 31,209
$5 MILLION.
DEPOT
PLANT+MTRLS
HANDLING EQ
059 MECHANIZED 7,670 7,670
MATERIAL
HANDLING EQUIP.
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
060 BASE PROCURED 14,125 14,125
EQUIPMENT.
061 CONTINGENCY 16,744 16,744
OPERATIONS.
062 PRODUCTIVITY 2,495 2,495
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT.
063 MOBILITY 10,573 10,573
EQUIPMENT.
064 ITEMS LESS THAN 5,462 5,462
$5 MILLION.
SPECIAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
066 DARP RC135..... 24,710 24,710
067 DCGS-AF........ 206,743 206,743
069 SPECIAL UPDATE 537,370 537,370
PROGRAM.
070 DEFENSE SPACE 77,898 77,898
RECONNAISSANCE
PROG..
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
070A CLASSIFIED 13,990,196 13,990,196
PROGRAMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
072 SPARES AND 32,813 32,813
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 16,566,018 -64,000 16,502,018
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DCAA
001 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,594 1,594
$5 MILLION.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DCMA
002 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 4,325 4,325
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DHRA
003 PERSONNEL 17,268 17,268
ADMINISTRATION.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DISA
008 INFORMATION 10,491 10,491
SYSTEMS
SECURITY.
010 TELEPORT 80,622 80,622
PROGRAM.
011 ITEMS LESS THAN 14,147 14,147
$5 MILLION.
012 NET CENTRIC 1,921 1,921
ENTERPRISE
SERVICES
(NCES).
013 DEFENSE 80,144 80,144
INFORMATION
SYSTEM NETWORK.
015 CYBER SECURITY 8,755 8,755
INITIATIVE.
016 WHITE HOUSE 33,737 33,737
COMMUNICATION
AGENCY.
017 SENIOR 32,544 32,544
LEADERSHIP
ENTERPRISE.
018 JOINT 13,300 13,300
INFORMATION
ENVIRONMENT.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, DLA
020 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 7,436 7,436
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DMACT
021 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 3 11,640 3 11,640
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DODEA
022 AUTOMATION/ 1,269 1,269
EDUCATIONAL
SUPPORT &
LOGISTICS.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, DSS
024 VEHICLES....... 1,500 1,500
025 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 1,039 1,039
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION
AGENCY
026 VEHICLES....... 1 50 1 50
027 OTHER MAJOR 3 7,639 3 7,639
EQUIPMENT.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
MISSILE
DEFENSE AGENCY
028 ADVANCE 68,880 68,880
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
029 THAAD.......... 31 464,424 31 464,424
030 AEGIS BMD...... 30 435,430 30 435,430
031 BMDS AN/TPY-2 48,140 48,140
RADARS.
032 AEGIS ASHORE 225,774 225,774
PHASE III.
034 IRON DOME...... 1 175,972 176,000 1 351,972
Program [176,000]
increase
for Iron
Dome.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, NSA
041 INFORMATION 3,448 3,448
SYSTEMS
SECURITY
PROGRAM (ISSP).
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, OSD
042 MAJOR 43,708 43,708
EQUIPMENT, OSD.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, TJS
044 MAJOR 10,783 10,783
EQUIPMENT, TJS.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, WHS
046 MAJOR 29,599 29,599
EQUIPMENT, WHS.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
046A CLASSIFIED 540,894 540,894
PROGRAMS.
AVIATION
PROGRAMS
047 MC-12.......... 40,500 40,500
048 ROTARY WING 112,226 112,226
UPGRADES AND
SUSTAINMENT.
049 MH-60 3,021 3,021
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
050 NON-STANDARD 48,200 48,200
AVIATION.
052 MH-47 CHINOOK.. 22,230 22,230
053 RQ-11 UNMANNED 6,397 6,397
AERIAL VEHICLE.
054 CV-22 25,578 25,578
MODIFICATION.
056 MQ-9 UNMANNED 15,651 15,651
AERIAL VEHICLE.
057 STUASL0........ 1,500 1,500
058 PRECISION 145,929 145,929
STRIKE PACKAGE.
059 AC/MC-130J..... 65,130 65,130
061 C-130 39,563 39,563
MODIFICATIONS.
SHIPBUILDING
063 UNDERWATER 25,459 25,459
SYSTEMS.
AMMUNITION
PROGRAMS
065 ORDNANCE ITEMS 144,336 144,336
<$5M.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
068 INTELLIGENCE 81,001 81,001
SYSTEMS.
070 DISTRIBUTED 17,323 -3,900 13,423
COMMON GROUND/
SURFACE
SYSTEMS.
Reduction [-3,900]
of PED
Ground
Systems.
071 OTHER ITEMS 84,852 84,852
<$5M.
072 COMBATANT CRAFT 51,937 51,937
SYSTEMS.
074 SPECIAL 31,017 31,017
PROGRAMS.
075 TACTICAL 63,134 63,134
VEHICLES.
076 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 192,448 192,448
<$5M.
078 COMBAT MISSION 19,984 19,984
REQUIREMENTS.
081 GLOBAL VIDEO 5,044 5,044
SURVEILLANCE
ACTIVITIES.
082 OPERATIONAL 38,126 38,126
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE.
088 OPERATIONAL 243,849 243,849
ENHANCEMENTS.
CBDP
095 CHEMICAL 170,137 170,137
BIOLOGICAL
SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS.
096 CB PROTECTION & 150,392 150,392
HAZARD
MITIGATION.
TOTAL 69 4,221,437 172,100 69 4,393,537
PROCUREMEN
T, DEFENSE-
WIDE.
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL
NEEDS FUND
001 JOINT URGENT 20,000 -20,000 0
OPERATIONAL
NEEDS FUND.
Unjustified [-20,000]
request.
TOTAL 20,000 -20,000 0
JOINT
URGENT
OPERATIONA
L NEEDS
FUND.
PRIOR YEAR
RESCISSIONS
001 PRIOR YEAR -265,685 265,685 0
RESCISSIONS.
Denied [265,685]
Prior Year
Rescission
request.
TOTAL -265,685 265,685 0
PRIOR YEAR
RESCISSION
S.
UNDISTRIBUTED
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
001 UNDISTRIBUTED -265,685 -265,685
GENERAL
PROVISIONS.
Undistribut [-265,685]
ed FY15
reduction.
TOTAL -265,685 -265,685
UNDISTRIBU
TED
GENERAL
PROVISIONS.
TOTAL 158,103 89,508,034 109 1,475,669 158,212 90,983,703
PROCUREMEN
T.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND
EVALUATION
SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 House
Line Program Element Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, ARMY
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 13,464 13,464
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
002 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 238,167 238,167
003 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 69,808 69,808
INITIATIVES.
004 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY 102,737 102,737
RESEARCH CENTERS.
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 424,176 424,176
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
005 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY....... 28,006 28,006
006 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC 33,515 33,515
SURVIVABILITY.
007 0602122A TRACTOR HIP................ 16,358 16,358
008 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY........ 63,433 63,433
009 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 18,502 18,502
TECHNOLOGY.
010 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY......... 46,194 46,194
011 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 28,528 28,528
012 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 27,435 27,435
SIMULATION.
013 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 72,883 72,883
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
014 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY...... 85,597 85,597
015 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND 3,971 3,971
EQUIPMENT DEFEATING
TECHNOLOGY.
016 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 6,853 6,853
PROGRAM.
017 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 38,069 38,069
TECHNOLOGY.
018 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC 56,435 56,435
DEVICES.
019 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY.... 38,445 38,445
020 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS........ 25,939 25,939
021 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 23,783 23,783
TECHNOLOGY.
022 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 15,659 15,659
TECHNOLOGY.
023 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, 33,817 33,817
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY.
024 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE 10,764 10,764
TECHNOLOGY.
025 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING 63,311 63,311
TECHNOLOGY.
026 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING 23,295 23,295
TECHNOLOGY.
027 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY...... 25,751 2,579 28,330
......................... Joint Service Combat [2,579]
Feeding Technology.
028 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY......... 76,068 76,068
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 862,611 2,579 865,190
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
029 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED 65,139 674 65,813
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... Joint Service Combat [674]
Feeding Tech Demo.
030 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 67,291 67,291
031 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED 88,990 88,990
TECHNOLOGY.
032 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 57,931 57,931
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
033 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 110,031 110,031
AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
034 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED 6,883 6,883
TECHNOLOGY.
035 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND 13,580 13,580
TRAINING ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
036 0603008A ELECTRONIC WARFARE ADVANCED 44,871 44,871
TECHNOLOGY.
037 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE............... 7,492 7,492
038 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & 16,749 16,749
SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
039 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE............... 14,483 14,483
041 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM-- 24,270 24,270
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
042 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL............... 3,440 3,440
043 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS............... 2,406 2,406
044 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 26,057 26,057
TECHNOLOGY.
045 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED 44,957 44,957
TECHNOLOGY.
046 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE............... 11,105 11,105
047 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING 181,609 181,609
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
048 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 13,074 13,074
BARRIER ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
049 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 7,321 7,321
PROGRAM.
050 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED 44,138 44,138
TECHNOLOGY.
051 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 9,197 9,197
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS.
052 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING 17,613 17,613
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
053 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER 39,164 39,164
SCIENCE AND SENSOR
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 917,791 674 918,465
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
054 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS 12,797 12,797
INTEGRATION.
055 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS 13,999 13,999
INTEGRATION.
058 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 29,334 29,334
AMMUNITION.
060 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 9,602 1,587 11,189
SURVIVABILITY.
......................... Food Advanced [1,587]
Development.
061 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC 8,953 8,953
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV
DEV.
062 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS 3,052 3,052
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
063 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 7,830 7,830
TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
065 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND 2,954 2,954
DEVELOPMENT.
067 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 13,386 13,386
EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
069 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV... 23,659 23,659
070 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED 6,830 3,000 9,830
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... Army requested [3,000]
realignment--Caliber
Config Study.
072 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES... 9,913 9,913
073 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 74,740 74,740
INITIATIVES.
074 0604120A ASSURED POSITIONING, 9,930 9,930
NAVIGATION AND TIMING
(PNT).
076 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 96,177 -25,000 71,177
CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2-
INTERCEPT (IFPC2).
......................... Schedule delay......... [-25,000]
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 323,156 -20,413 302,743
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
079 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS.......... 37,246 37,246
081 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 6,002 6,002
DEVELOPMENT.
082 0604280A JOINT TACTICAL RADIO....... 9,832 9,832
083 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING 9,730 9,730
VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR).
084 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM. 5,532 5,532
085 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE............... 19,929 19,929
086 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS... 27,884 6,702 34,586
......................... Army requested [6,702]
realignment.
087 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES... 210 210
088 0604611A JAVELIN.................... 4,166 4,166
089 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL 12,913 12,913
VEHICLES.
090 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL........ 16,764 16,764
091 0604641A TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND 6,770 6,770
VEHICLE (TUGV).
092 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG 65,333 65,333
DEV.
093 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, 1,335 562 1,897
AND EQUIPMENT.
......................... Military Subsistence [562]
Systems.
094 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING 8,945 8,945
DEVICES--ENG DEV.
096 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, 15,906 15,906
CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE--
ENG DEV.
097 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION 4,394 4,394
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
098 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT 11,084 11,084
DEVELOPMENT.
099 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE 10,027 10,027
SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG DEV.
100 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 42,430 42,430
TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
101 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, 105,279 105,279
INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION.
102 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--ENG 15,006 15,006
DEV.
103 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 24,581 24,581
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
104 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, 4,433 4,433
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS--
ENG DEV.
105 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL 30,397 30,397
BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
106 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER-- 57,705 57,705
ENG DEV.
108 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & 29,683 29,683
CONTROL HARDWARE &
SOFTWARE.
109 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT.......... 5,224 5,224
111 0604823A FIREFINDER................. 37,492 37,492
112 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR 6,157 6,157
DEM/VAL.
113 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD..... 1,912 1,912
116 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 69,761 69,761
DEVELOPMENT.
117 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 138,465 138,465
PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
118 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE 92,353 92,353
VEHICLE (AMPV).
119 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 8,440 8,440
CENTER (JTNC).
120 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 17,999 17,999
(JTN).
121 0605035A COMMON INFRARED 145,409 145,409
COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
122 0605350A WIN-T INCREMENT 3--FULL 113,210 113,210
NETWORKING.
123 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 6,882 6,882
SYSTEM (JTRS).
124 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE 83,838 83,838
(JAGM).
125 0605456A PAC-3/MSE MISSILE.......... 35,009 35,009
126 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND 142,584 142,584
MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD).
127 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE...... 49,160 49,160
128 0605626A AERIAL COMMON SENSOR....... 17,748 17,748
129 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES 15,212 15,212
INTEGRATION (MIP).
130 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 45,718 45,718
VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING
AND MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
131 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT 10,041 10,041
EQUIPMENT.
132 0210609A PALADIN INTEGRATED 83,300 83,300
MANAGEMENT (PIM).
133 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............... 983 983
134 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 8,961 8,961
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 1,719,374 7,264 1,726,638
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
135 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR 18,062 18,062
DEVELOPMENT.
136 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 10,040 10,040
137 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 60,317 60,317
138 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER......... 20,612 20,612
139 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL....... 176,041 176,041
140 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION 19,439 19,439
PROGRAM.
142 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND 275,025 275,025
FACILITIES.
143 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST 45,596 45,596
INSTRUMENTATION AND
TARGETS.
144 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY 33,295 33,295
ANALYSIS.
145 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION..... 4,700 4,700
146 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO 6,413 6,413
RDT&E ACTIVITIES.
147 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS.. 20,746 20,746
148 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN 7,015 7,015
ITEMS.
149 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL 49,221 49,221
TESTING.
150 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER..... 55,039 55,039
151 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD 1,125 1,125
COLLABORATION & INTEG.
152 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES..... 64,169 64,169
153 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION 32,319 32,319
ACTIVITIES.
154 0605805A MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, 49,052 49,052
EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY.
155 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 2,612 2,612
TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT.
156 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D......... 49,592 49,592
......................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E 1,000,430 1,000,430
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
158 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 17,112 17,112
PROGRAM.
159 0607141A LOGISTICS AUTOMATION....... 3,654 3,654
160 0607664A BIOMETRIC ENABLING 1,332 1,332
CAPABILITY (BEC).
161 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 152,991 152,991
162 0102419A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT 54,076 -25,000 29,076
OFFICE.
......................... Unobligated balances... [-25,000]
163 0203726A ADV FIELD ARTILLERY 22,374 22,374
TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM.
164 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP 24,371 24,371
OPERATION COORDINATION
SYSTEM (JADOCS).
165 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT 295,177 26,000 321,177
PROGRAMS.
......................... Stryker ECP risk [26,000]
mitigation.
166 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM.... 45,092 45,092
167 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/ 264,887 264,887
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
168 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 381 381
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
169 0203758A DIGITIZATION............... 10,912 10,912
170 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT 5,115 5,115
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
171 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT 49,848 -5,000 44,848
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
......................... Contract delay for [-5,000]
ATACMS.
172 0203808A TRACTOR CARD............... 22,691 22,691
173 0205402A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE-- 4,364 4,364
OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV.
174 0205410A MATERIALS HANDLING 834 834
EQUIPMENT.
175 0205412A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 280 280
TECHNOLOGY--OPERATIONAL
SYSTEM DEV.
176 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE 78,758 78,758
DEFENSE (AMD) SYSTEM.
177 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH 45,377 45,377
ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS).
178 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND 10,209 10,209
SYSTEM.
181 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 12,525 12,525
ACTIVITIES.
182 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS 14,175 14,175
SECURITY PROGRAM.
183 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 4,527 4,527
SYSTEM.
184 0303142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT 11,011 11,011
(SPACE).
185 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 2,151 2,151
CONTROL SYSTEM.
187 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 22,870 22,870
VEHICLES.
188 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 20,155 20,155
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
189 0305219A MQ-1C GRAY EAGLE UAS....... 46,472 46,472
191 0305233A RQ-7 UAV................... 16,389 16,389
192 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 1,974 1,974
INTELLIGENCE.
193 0310349A WIN-T INCREMENT 2--INITIAL 3,249 3,249
NETWORKING.
194 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL 76,225 76,225
PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
194A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 4,802 4,802
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 1,346,360 -4,000 1,342,360
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 6,593,898 -13,896 6,580,002
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
.........................
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, NAVY
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 113,908 5,000 118,908
INITIATIVES.
......................... DURIP program increase. [5,000]
002 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 18,734 18,734
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
003 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 443,697 443,697
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 576,339 5,000 581,339
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
004 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED 95,753 95,753
RESEARCH.
005 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED 139,496 139,496
RESEARCH.
006 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE 45,831 45,831
TECHNOLOGY.
007 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED 43,541 43,541
RESEARCH.
008 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT 46,923 46,923
APPLIED RESEARCH.
009 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 107,872 107,872
APPLIED RESEARCH.
010 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING 45,388 20,000 65,388
ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
RESEARCH.
......................... Service Life extension [20,000]
for the AGOR ships.
011 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 5,887 5,887
APPLIED RESEARCH.
012 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED 86,880 86,880
RESEARCH.
013 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 170,786 170,786
APPLIED RESEARCH.
014 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 32,526 32,526
WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 820,883 20,000 840,883
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
015 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED 37,734 37,734
TECHNOLOGY.
016 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED 25,831 25,831
TECHNOLOGY.
017 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 64,623 64,623
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
018 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 128,397 128,397
DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
019 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 11,506 11,506
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
020 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 256,144 256,144
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
021 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION 4,838 4,838
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
022 0603747N UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED 9,985 9,985
TECHNOLOGY.
023 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING 53,956 53,956
EXPERIMENTS AND
DEMONSTRATIONS.
024 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 2,000 2,000
WARFARE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 595,014 595,014
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
025 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL 40,429 40,429
APPLICATIONS.
026 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY..... 4,325 4,325
027 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND 2,991 2,991
AND CONTROL.
028 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS........... 12,651 12,651
029 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.... 7,782 7,782
030 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE 5,275 5,275
RECONNAISSANCE.
031 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS 1,646 1,646
TECHNOLOGY.
032 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER 100,349 100,349
MINE COUNTERMEASURES.
033 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO 52,781 52,781
DEFENSE.
034 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 5,959 5,959
035 0603525N PILOT FISH................. 148,865 148,865
036 0603527N RETRACT LARCH.............. 25,365 25,365
037 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER............ 80,477 80,477
038 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL....... 669 669
039 0603553N SURFACE ASW................ 1,060 1,060
040 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM 70,551 70,551
DEVELOPMENT.
041 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE 8,044 8,044
SYSTEMS.
042 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED 17,864 17,864
DESIGN.
043 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & 23,716 23,716
FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
044 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER 499,961 499,961
SYSTEMS.
045 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY 21,026 21,026
SYSTEMS.
046 0603576N CHALK EAGLE................ 542,700 542,700
047 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS). 88,734 88,734
048 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION.. 20,881 20,881
049 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT........... 849,277 849,277
050 0603596N LCS MISSION MODULES........ 196,948 196,948
051 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND RE-TEST 8,115 8,115
(ATRT).
052 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS..... 7,603 7,603
053 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT 105,749 85,100 190,849
VEHICLES.
......................... Acceleration of the ACV [85,100]
Increment 1.1 Program.
054 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/ 1,342 1,342
SUPPORT SYSTEM.
055 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 21,399 21,399
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
056 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT..... 43,578 43,578
057 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING 7,764 7,764
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
058 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION... 13,200 13,200
059 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM........ 69,415 69,415
060 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT..... 2,588 2,588
061 0603734N CHALK CORAL................ 176,301 176,301
062 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY. 3,873 3,873
063 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE.............. 376,028 376,028
064 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA.............. 272,096 272,096
065 0603751N RETRACT ELM................ 42,233 42,233
066 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN............. 46,504 46,504
067 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES.......... 25,109 25,109
068 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND 9,659 9,659
DEVELOPMENT.
069 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY..... 318 318
070 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 40,912 40,912
TESTING.
071 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 54,896 -27,000 27,896
AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
VAL.
......................... Program delay.......... [-27,000]
073 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND 58,696 58,696
ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS.
074 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS 43,613 43,613
NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER
(CVN 78--80).
075 0604122N REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM 21,110 21,110
(RMS).
076 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 5,657 5,657
INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
(TADIRCM).
077 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION 8,033 8,033
OPTIMIZATION.
078 0604454N LX (R)..................... 36,859 36,859
079 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO 15,227 15,227
CONTROLLED IED ELECTRONIC
WARFARE (JCREW).
081 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 22,393 22,393
WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/
ENGINEERING SUPPORT.
082 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE 202,939 202,939
WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT.
083 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 11,450 11,450
VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING
AND MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
084 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT-- 6,495 6,495
MIP.
085 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 332 332
DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 4,591,812 58,100 4,649,912
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
086 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT... 25,153 25,153
087 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT..... 46,154 46,154
088 0604214N AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV.... 25,372 25,372
089 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT...... 53,712 53,712
090 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER 11,434 11,434
UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
091 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT 2,164 2,164
ENGINEERING.
092 0604221N P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.. 1,710 1,710
093 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM..... 9,094 9,094
094 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM.... 70,248 70,248
095 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE........... 193,200 193,200
096 0604245N H-1 UPGRADES............... 44,115 44,115
097 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS.... 23,227 23,227
098 0604262N V-22A...................... 61,249 61,249
099 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS 15,014 15,014
DEVELOPMENT.
100 0604269N EA-18...................... 18,730 18,730
101 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 28,742 28,742
DEVELOPMENT.
102 0604273N EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT. 388,086 388,086
103 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 246,856 246,856
(NGJ).
104 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 7,106 7,106
SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY).
105 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT 189,112 189,112
SYSTEM ENGINEERING.
106 0604311N LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS 376 376
INTEGRATION.
107 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB).. 71,849 71,849
108 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE 53,198 53,198
IMPROVEMENTS.
109 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM............... 38,941 38,941
110 0604376M MARINE AIR GROUND TASK 7,832 7,832
FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC
WARFARE (EW) FOR AVIATION.
111 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE 15,263 15,263
CONTROL--COUNTER AIR
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
112 0604404N UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED 403,017 -203,000 200,017
AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE AND
STRIKE (UCLASS) SYSTEM.
......................... Program delay.......... [-203,000]
113 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER 20,409 20,409
SENSORS.
114 0604503N SSN-688 AND TRIDENT 71,565 71,565
MODERNIZATION.
115 0604504N AIR CONTROL................ 29,037 29,037
116 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS. 122,083 122,083
118 0604522N ADVANCED MISSILE DEFENSE 144,706 144,706
RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM.
119 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN............. 72,695 72,695
120 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE 38,985 38,985
SYSTEM.
121 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE 48,470 48,470
FIRE T&E.
122 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER 3,935 3,935
RESOURCES.
123 0604580N VIRGINIA PAYLOAD MODULE 132,602 132,602
(VPM).
124 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT........... 19,067 19,067
125 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO 25,280 25,280
DEVELOPMENT.
126 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 8,985 8,985
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
127 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, 7,669 7,669
SIMULATION, AND HUMAN
FACTORS.
128 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 4,400 4,400
SYSTEMS.
129 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & 56,889 56,889
CONTROL).
130 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: 96,937 96,937
HARD KILL).
131 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: 134,564 134,564
SOFT KILL/EW).
132 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING... 200 200
133 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT........ 8,287 8,287
134 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM....... 29,504 29,504
135 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)-- 513,021 513,021
EMD.
136 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)-- 516,456 516,456
EMD.
137 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 2,887 2,887
DEVELOPMENT.
138 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 66,317 66,317
DEVELOPMENT.
139 0605212N CH-53K RDTE................ 573,187 573,187
140 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR 67,815 67,815
(SSC).
141 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE 6,300 6,300
(JAGM).
142 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 308,037 15,000 323,037
AIRCRAFT (MMA).
......................... Wideband Communication [15,000]
Development.
143 0204202N DDG-1000................... 202,522 202,522
144 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM-- 1,011 1,011
MIP.
145 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 10,357 10,357
SYSTEMS.
146 0305124N SPECIAL APPLICATIONS 23,975 23,975
PROGRAM.
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 5,419,108 -188,000 5,231,108
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
147 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR 45,272 45,272
DEVELOPMENT.
148 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 79,718 79,718
149 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 123,993 123,993
150 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND 4,960 4,960
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION.
151 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 8,296 8,296
SUPPORT--NAVY.
152 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES.. 45,752 45,752
154 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION 876 876
SERVICES.
155 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & 72,070 72,070
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
156 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT 3,237 3,237
157 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND 73,033 73,033
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT.
158 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT 138,304 138,304
SUPPORT.
159 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT 336,286 336,286
160 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND 16,658 16,658
EVALUATION CAPABILITY.
161 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 2,505 2,505
WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
162 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/ 8,325 8,325
RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT.
163 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE 17,866 17,866
SUPPORT.
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 977,151 977,151
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
168 0604402N UNMANNED COMBAT AIR VEHICLE 35,949 35,949
(UCAV) ADVANCED COMPONENT
AND PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT.
169 0604766M MARINE CORPS DATA SYSTEMS.. 215 215
170 0605525N CARRIER ONBOARD DELIVERY 8,873 8,873
(COD) FOLLOW ON.
172 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS 96,943 96,943
SYSTEM SUPPORT.
173 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY 30,057 30,057
PROGRAM.
174 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE 4,509 4,509
DEVELOPMENT.
175 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC 13,676 13,676
COMMUNICATIONS.
176 0203761N RAPID TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION 12,480 12,480
(RTT).
177 0204136N F/A-18 SQUADRONS........... 76,216 76,216
179 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS 27,281 27,281
(TACTICAL).
180 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT............ 2,878 2,878
181 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK 32,385 32,385
MISSION PLANNING CENTER
(TMPC).
182 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 39,371 39,371
SYSTEM.
183 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT 4,609 4,609
UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT).
184 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED 99,106 -10,000 89,106
RADAR (G/ATOR).
......................... Unjustified cost growth [-10,000]
185 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING 39,922 39,922
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
186 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT. 1,157 1,157
187 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 22,067 22,067
READINESS SUPPORT.
188 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT........... 17,420 17,420
189 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS........ 151,208 151,208
190 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM 26,366 26,366
INTEGRATION.
191 0205632N MK-48 ADCAP................ 25,952 25,952
192 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS...... 106,936 106,936
194 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER 104,023 104,023
SYSTEMS.
195 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS 77,398 77,398
SYSTEMS.
196 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND 32,495 32,495
CONTROL SYSTEM (CAC2S).
197 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/ 156,626 156,626
SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS.
198 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 20,999 20,999
SERVICES SUPPORT.
199 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ 14,179 14,179
ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS
(MIP).
200 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES...... 47,258 47,258
201 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 10,210 10,210
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
206 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 41,829 41,829
(SPACE).
207 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK 22,780 22,780
ENTERPRISE SERVICES
(CANES).
208 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS 23,053 23,053
SECURITY PROGRAM.
209 0303150M WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 296 296
CONTROL SYSTEM.
212 0305160N NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND 359 359
OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE
(METOC).
213 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 6,166 6,166
PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES.
214 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 8,505 8,505
VEHICLES.
216 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 11,613 11,613
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
217 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 18,146 18,146
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
218 0305220N RQ-4 UAV................... 498,003 32,400 530,403
......................... Triton Sensor [32,400]
Development
Acceleration.
219 0305231N MQ-8 UAV................... 47,294 47,294
220 0305232M RQ-11 UAV.................. 718 718
221 0305233N RQ-7 UAV................... 851 851
222 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL 4,813 4,813
UAS (STUASL0).
223 0305239M RQ-21A..................... 8,192 8,192
224 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR 22,559 22,559
DEVELOPMENT.
225 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS 2,000 2,000
(UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP).
226 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION 4,719 4,719
SUPPORT.
227 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF). 21,168 21,168
228 0708011N INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.... 37,169 37,169
229 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY 4,347 4,347
(MARITECH).
229A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 1,162,684 1,162,684
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 3,286,028 22,400 3,308,428
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 16,266,335 -82,500 16,183,835
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
.........................
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, AF
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 314,482 314,482
002 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 127,079 127,079
INITIATIVES.
003 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH 12,929 12,929
INITIATIVES.
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 454,490 454,490
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
004 0602102F MATERIALS.................. 105,680 105,680
005 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE 105,747 105,747
TECHNOLOGIES.
006 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED 81,957 81,957
RESEARCH.
007 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION....... 172,550 197,000 369,550
......................... RD-180 replacement..... [220,000]
......................... Reduction for liquid [-23,000]
engine combustion
technologies and
advanced liquid engine
technologies.
008 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS.......... 118,343 118,343
009 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY........... 98,229 98,229
010 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS..... 87,387 87,387
011 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY. 125,955 125,955
012 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION 147,789 147,789
SCIENCES AND METHODS.
013 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH. 37,496 37,496
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 1,081,133 197,000 1,278,133
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
014 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR 32,177 10,000 42,177
WEAPON SYSTEMS.
......................... Metals Affordability [10,000]
Initiative.
015 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND 15,800 15,800
TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
016 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS. 34,420 34,420
017 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/ 91,062 91,062
DEMO.
018 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND 124,236 124,236
POWER TECHNOLOGY.
019 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT 47,602 47,602
TECHNOLOGY.
020 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT 69,026 69,026
TECHNOLOGY.
021 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE 14,031 14,031
SYSTEM (MSSS).
022 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 21,788 21,788
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
023 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS 42,046 42,046
TECHNOLOGY.
024 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 23,542 10,000 33,542
......................... Program increase....... [10,000]
025 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 42,772 42,772
PROGRAM.
026 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE 35,315 35,315
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 593,817 20,000 613,817
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
027 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 5,408 5,408
DEVELOPMENT.
031 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY... 6,075 6,075
032 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION 10,980 10,980
TECHNOLOGY.
033 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND 2,392 2,392
DEVELOPMENT.
034 0603791F INTERNATIONAL SPACE 833 833
COOPERATIVE R&D.
035 0603830F SPACE SECURITY AND DEFENSE 32,313 32,313
PROGRAM.
037 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC 30,885 30,885
MISSILE--DEM/VAL.
039 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION--DEM/ 1,798 1,798
VAL.
040 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE.......... 913,728 913,728
042 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER........ 2,669 2,669
045 0604422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON... 39,901 -34,900 5,001
......................... Realigned to DMSP-20 [-34,900]
launch.
049 0604800F F-35--EMD.................. 4,976 4,976
050 0604857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE 30,000 30,000
SPACE.
......................... ORS Office and ORS-5 [30,000]
Competition Launch.
051 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM.... 59,004 59,004
054 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR 15,722 15,722
DOMINANCE.
055 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG- 88,825 88,825
RANGE RADAR (3DELRR).
056 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING 156,659 156,659
SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT)
(SPACE).
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 1,372,168 -4,900 1,367,268
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
059 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE 13,324 13,324
FLIGHT TRAINING.
060 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE 1,965 1,965
DEVELOPMENT.
061 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS 39,110 39,110
ENTERPRISE.
062 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT 3,926 3,926
063 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)-- 68,759 68,759
EMD.
064 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS....... 23,746 23,746
065 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 9,462 10,000 19,462
SYSTEMS.
......................... Program increase....... [10,000]
066 0604426F SPACE FENCE................ 214,131 214,131
067 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK. 30,687 30,687
068 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM 319,501 319,501
(SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
069 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE 31,112 31,112
DEVELOPMENT.
070 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS............... 2,543 2,543
071 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT....... 46,340 46,340
072 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS....... 8,854 8,854
073 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES..... 10,129 10,129
075 0604800F F-35--EMD.................. 563,037 563,037
078 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON. 4,938 4,938
079 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION.... 59,826 59,826
080 0605030F JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 78 78
CENTER (JTNC).
081 0605213F F-22 MODERNIZATION 173,647 173,647
INCREMENT 3.2B.
082 0605214F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS FUZE 5,332 5,332
DEVELOPMENT.
083 0605221F KC-46...................... 776,937 776,937
084 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING.... 8,201 8,201
086 0605278F HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E...... 7,497 7,497
087 0605431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM 314,378 314,378
(SPACE).
088 0605432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE).... 103,552 103,552
089 0605433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM 31,425 31,425
(SPACE).
090 0605458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER 10.2 85,938 85,938
RDT&E.
091 0605931F B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT 98,768 98,768
SYSTEM.
092 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS 198,357 198,357
MODERNIZATION.
094 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION 8,831 8,831
TRAINING.
095 0307581F NEXTGEN JSTARS............. 73,088 73,088
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 3,337,419 10,000 3,347,419
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
097 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR 24,418 24,418
DEVELOPMENT.
098 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 47,232 47,232
099 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE..... 30,443 30,443
101 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & 12,266 12,266
EVALUATION.
102 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT 689,509 689,509
103 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH 34,364 34,364
PROGRAM (SPACE).
104 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP)... 21,161 21,161
105 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION AND 46,955 46,955
MODERNIZATION--TEST AND
EVALUATION SUPPORT.
106 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT-- 32,965 32,965
TEST AND EVALUATION
SUPPORT.
107 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND 13,850 13,850
MATURATION.
108 0606116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING 19,512 19,512
RANGE DEVELOPMENT.
110 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER 181,727 181,727
(SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE.
111 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION 4,938 4,938
SERVICES (EIS).
112 0702806F ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT 18,644 18,644
SUPPORT.
113 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING..... 1,425 1,425
114 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES... 3,790 3,790
114A XXXXXXXF EJECTION SEAT RELIABILITY 3,500 3,500
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
......................... Initial Aircraft [3,500]
Qualification.
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 1,183,199 3,500 1,186,699
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
115 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 299,760 299,760
III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL
SEGMENT.
116 0604445F WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE..... 2,000 2,000
......................... Implementation of the [2,000]
Secretary's Cruise
Missile Defense Program.
118 0604618F JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 2,469 2,469
MUNITION.
119 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 90,218 90,218
PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS).
120 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 34,815 34,815
EXECUTIVE AGENCY.
122 0101113F B-52 SQUADRONS............. 55,457 55,457
123 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE 450 450
(ALCM).
124 0101126F B-1B SQUADRONS............. 5,353 5,353
125 0101127F B-2 SQUADRONS.............. 131,580 -29,400 102,180
......................... Flexible Strike [-29,400]
execution delay.
126 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS........ 139,109 139,109
127 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING SYSTEM-- 35,603 35,603
USSTRATCOM.
128 0101314F NIGHT FIST--USSTRATCOM..... 32 32
130 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION 1,522 1,522
CONTROL CENTER
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
131 0105921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO 3,134 3,134
STRATCOM--SPACE ACTIVITIES.
133 0205219F MQ-9 UAV................... 170,396 170,396
136 0207133F F-16 SQUADRONS............. 133,105 133,105
137 0207134F F-15E SQUADRONS............ 261,969 261,969
138 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE 14,831 14,831
SUPPRESSION.
139 0207138F F-22A SQUADRONS............ 156,962 156,962
140 0207142F F-35 SQUADRONS............. 43,666 43,666
141 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES...... 29,739 29,739
142 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 82,195 82,195
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
144 0207171F F-15 EPAWSS................ 68,944 -15,500 53,444
......................... EPAWSS contract delays. [-15,500]
145 0207224F COMBAT RESCUE AND RECOVERY. 5,095 5,095
146 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE.. 883 883
147 0207247F AF TENCAP.................. 5,812 10,000 15,812
......................... Program increase....... [10,000]
148 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS 1,081 1,081
PROCUREMENT.
149 0207253F COMPASS CALL............... 14,411 14,411
150 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 109,664 109,664
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
151 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE 15,897 15,897
STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM).
152 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS 41,066 41,066
CENTER (AOC).
153 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING 552 552
CENTER (CRC).
154 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND 180,804 180,804
CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS).
155 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL 3,754 3,754
SYSTEMS.
157 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE 7,891 7,891
SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
158 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY- 5,891 5,891
MOD.
159 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK... 1,782 1,782
161 0207452F DCAPES..................... 821 821
163 0207590F SEEK EAGLE................. 23,844 23,844
164 0207601F USAF MODELING AND 16,723 16,723
SIMULATION.
165 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION 5,956 5,956
CENTERS.
166 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND 4,457 4,457
EXERCISES.
167 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS... 60,679 60,679
169 0208059F CYBER COMMAND ACTIVITIES... 67,057 67,057
170 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 13,355 13,355
OPERATIONS.
171 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 5,576 5,576
OPERATIONS.
179 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY 12,218 12,218
INTELLIGENCE.
180 0302015F E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE 28,778 28,778
OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC).
181 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY 81,035 81,035
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
(MEECN).
182 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS 70,497 70,497
SECURITY PROGRAM.
183 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 692 692
SYSTEM.
185 0303601F MILSATCOM TERMINALS........ 55,208 55,208
187 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE. 106,786 106,786
190 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC 4,157 4,157
MANAGEMENT (GATM).
193 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK 20,806 20,806
(SPACE).
194 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE............ 25,102 25,102
195 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, 23,516 23,516
APPROACH, AND LANDING
SYSTEM (ATCALS).
196 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS............. 8,639 8,639
199 0305128F SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE 498 498
ACTIVITIES.
200 0305145F ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION 13,222 13,222
201 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT 360 360
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
ACTIVITIES.
206 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND 3,674 3,674
EVALUATION CENTER.
207 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION, 2,480 2,480
INTEGRATION AND RAPID
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
208 0305179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST 8,592 8,592
SERVICE (IBS).
209 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM 13,462 13,462
(SPACE).
210 0305202F DRAGON U-2................. 5,511 5,511
212 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 28,113 10,000 38,113
SYSTEMS.
......................... Per Air Force UFR...... [10,000]
213 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 13,516 13,516
SYSTEMS.
214 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 27,265 27,265
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
215 0305219F MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV........ 1,378 1,378
216 0305220F RQ-4 UAV................... 244,514 244,514
217 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC 11,096 11,096
COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
218 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK (CDL)..... 36,137 36,137
219 0305238F NATO AGS................... 232,851 232,851
220 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE. 20,218 20,218
221 0305265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT...... 212,571 212,571
222 0305614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM....... 73,779 73,779
223 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION.... 4,102 4,102
225 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM 20,468 20,468
(SPACE).
226 0305940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 11,596 11,596
OPERATIONS.
227 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY 4,938 4,938
DEVELOPMENT.
228 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING (SEW). 1,212 1,212
230 0401119F C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF). 38,773 38,773
231 0401130F C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF)......... 83,773 83,773
232 0401132F C-130J PROGRAM............. 26,715 26,715
233 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR 5,172 5,172
COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM).
234 0401219F KC-10S..................... 2,714 2,714
235 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT 27,784 27,784
236 0401318F CV-22...................... 38,719 38,719
237 0401319F PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT 11,006 11,006
REPLACEMENT (PAR).
238 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT 8,405 8,405
CONTROL.
239 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF). 1,407 1,407
241 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION 109,685 109,685
TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
242 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 16,209 16,209
243 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING...... 987 987
244 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES. 126 126
245 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY 2,603 2,603
AGENCY.
246 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION 1,589 1,589
PROGRAM.
247 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION... 5,026 5,026
248 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND 1,394 1,394
ANALYSIS AGENCY.
249 0901279F FACILITIES OPERATION-- 3,798 3,798
ADMINISTRATIVE.
250 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 107,314 107,314
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
250A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 11,441,120 -77,200 11,363,920
......................... Classified program [25,000]
increase.
......................... Classified program [-102,200]
reduction.
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 15,717,666 -100,100 15,617,566
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 23,739,892 125,500 23,865,392
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
.........................
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, DW
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH 37,778 37,778
INITIATIVE.
002 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 312,146 312,146
003 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES. 44,564 -10,000 34,564
......................... National Security [-10,000]
Science and Engineering
Faculty Fellowship
program.
004 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL 49,848 49,848
RESEARCH SCIENCE.
005 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION 45,488 10,000 55,488
PROGRAM.
......................... Pre-Kindergarten to [10,000]
12th Grade STEM
Programs.
006 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES 24,412 10,000 34,412
AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY
INSTITUTIONS.
......................... Historically Black [10,000]
Colleges and
Universities.
007 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 48,261 48,261
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 562,497 10,000 572,497
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
008 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY. 20,065 20,065
009 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY...... 112,242 112,242
011 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH 51,875 51,875
PROGRAM.
012 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE 41,965 41,965
ADVANCEMENT OF S&T
PRIORITIES.
013 0602303E INFORMATION & 334,407 334,407
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY.
015 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE. 44,825 44,825
016 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 226,317 226,317
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
018 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH.... 15,000 15,000
020 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY........ 305,484 305,484
021 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL 160,389 160,389
TECHNOLOGY.
022 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY..... 179,203 179,203
023 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 151,737 151,737
DEFEAT TECHNOLOGIES.
024 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 9,156 9,156
INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED
RESEARCH.
025 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 39,750 39,750
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 1,692,415 1,692,415
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
026 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED 26,688 26,688
TECHNOLOGY.
027 0603121D8Z SO/LIC ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT 8,682 8,682
028 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 69,675 20,000 89,675
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
......................... Program emphasis for CT [20,000]
and Irregular Warfare
Programs.
029 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING 30,000 -6,000 24,000
......................... Program decrease....... [-6,000]
030 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION 283,694 283,694
INITIATIVES--PROLIFERATION
PREVENTION AND DEFEAT.
032 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 8,470 8,470
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.
033 0603177C DISCRIMINATION SENSOR 45,110 45,110
TECHNOLOGY.
034 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY......... 14,068 13,348 27,416
......................... MDA DE Ballistic [13,348]
Missile Kill Capability
Development.
035 0603179C ADVANCED C4ISR............. 15,329 15,329
036 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH.......... 16,584 16,584
037 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS 19,335 19,335
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
038 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR 2,544 2,544
THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)--
THEATER CAPABILITY.
039 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM--MDA 51,033 51,033
TECHNOLOGY.
040 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS. 129,723 129,723
041 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND 179,883 179,883
TECHNOLOGY.
042 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS....... 12,000 12,000
043 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 60,000 -10,000 50,000
ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS.
......................... Program decrease....... [-10,000]
044 0603294C COMMON KILL VEHICLE 25,639 25,639
TECHNOLOGY.
045 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 132,674 132,674
DEFENSE PROGRAM--ADVANCED
DEVELOPMENT.
046 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED 10,965 10,965
TECHNOLOGY.
047 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY 131,960 -10,000 121,960
DEMONSTRATIONS.
......................... Program decrease....... [-10,000]
052 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING 91,095 91,095
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAM.
053 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES 33,706 33,706
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
054 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D 16,836 16,836
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS.
055 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION 29,683 29,683
ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY.
056 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL 57,796 57,796
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
057 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY 72,144 72,144
DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT.
058 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM.. 7,405 7,405
059 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 92,246 92,246
TECHNOLOGIES.
060 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND 243,265 243,265
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
062 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE 386,926 386,926
TECHNOLOGY.
063 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.......... 312,821 312,821
064 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING 10,692 10,692
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
065 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 15,776 15,776
INSTITUTE.
066 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL 69,319 -5,000 64,319
PROJECTS.
......................... Program decrease....... [-5,000]
068 0603832D8Z DOD MODELING AND SIMULATION 3,000 3,000
MANAGEMENT OFFICE.
071 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & 81,148 81,148
TECHNOLOGY.
072 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY 31,800 31,800
CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
073 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS............... 46,066 46,066
074 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 57,622 57,622
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 2,933,402 2,348 2,935,750
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES
077 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 41,072 41,072
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
079 0603600D8Z WALKOFF.................... 90,558 90,558
080 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSORS 15,518 15,518
APPLICATION PROGRAM.
081 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 51,462 51,462
TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM.
082 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 299,598 299,598
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
083 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 1,003,768 40,000 1,043,768
MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT.
......................... BMD program increase... [40,000]
084 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 179,236 179,236
DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL.
085 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 392,893 392,893
SENSORS.
086 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS...... 410,863 410,863
087 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA...... 310,261 310,261
088 0603892C AEGIS BMD.................. 929,208 929,208
089 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & 31,346 31,346
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
090 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 6,389 6,389
SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
091 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 443,484 443,484
COMMAND AND CONTROL,
BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND
COMMUNICATI.
092 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 46,387 46,387
JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
093 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION 58,530 58,530
& OPERATIONS CENTER
(MDIOC).
094 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH........... 16,199 16,199
095 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR 64,409 64,409
(SBX).
096 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 96,803 172,000 268,803
PROGRAMS.
......................... Program increase for [172,000]
Israeli Cooperative
Programs.
097 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 386,482 386,482
TEST.
098 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 485,294 485,294
TARGETS.
099 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING...... 10,194 10,194
100 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE.......... 10,139 10,139
101 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 2,907 2,907
CORROSION PROGRAM.
102 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 190,000 -20,000 170,000
TECHNOLOGIES.
......................... Program decrease....... [-20,000]
103 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) 3,702 3,702
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM
(UAS) COMMON DEVELOPMENT.
104 0604445J WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE..... 53,000 53,000
107 0604787J JOINT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION.. 7,002 7,002
108 0604828J JOINT FIRES INTEGRATION AND 7,102 7,102
INTEROPERABILITY TEAM.
109 0604880C LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3).... 123,444 123,444
110 0604881C AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO- 263,695 263,695
DEVELOPMENT.
113 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND 12,500 12,500
INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
114 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC 2,656 2,656
TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM.
115 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE.. 961 961
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 6,047,062 192,000 6,239,062
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
AND PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION
116 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 7,936 7,936
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD.
117 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE 70,762 70,762
CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
118 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 345,883 345,883
DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
119 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES JOINT 25,459 25,459
PROGRAM OFFICE (AITS-JPO).
120 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION 17,562 17,562
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
(JTIDS).
121 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 6,887 6,887
DEFEAT CAPABILITIES.
122 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 12,530 12,530
DEVELOPMENT.
123 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY 286 286
INITIATIVE.
124 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY 3,244 3,244
PROGRAM.
125 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT 6,500 6,500
INITIATIVES.
126 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 15,326 15,326
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
127 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND INTEGRATION 19,351 19,351
128 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES 41,465 41,465
(DAI)--FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
129 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND 10,135 10,135
ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM
(DRAS).
130 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC 9,546 9,546
PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES.
131 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 14,241 14,241
SYSTEM.
132 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY 3,660 3,660
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
(EEIM).
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 610,773 610,773
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
133 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING 5,616 5,616
SYSTEM (DRRS).
134 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE 3,092 3,092
DEVELOPMENT.
135 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION 254,503 254,503
INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT
(CTEIP).
136 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS 21,661 21,661
138 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT 27,162 27,162
TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC).
139 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT 24,501 24,501
AND ANALYSIS.
142 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND 43,176 43,176
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO).
145 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING........ 44,246 44,246
146 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 2,665 2,665
SUPPORT--OSD.
147 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL 4,366 4,366
SECURITY.
148 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND 27,901 27,901
INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
149 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD 2,855 2,855
(INTELLIGENCE).
150 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 105,944 105,944
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
156 0605502KA SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE 400 400
RESEARCH.
159 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION 1,634 1,634
RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL
BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER.
160 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS 12,105 12,105
161 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL 50,389 50,389
INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC).
162 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD 8,452 8,452
ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND
EVALUATION.
163 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND 15,187 4,000 19,187
EVALUATION.
......................... Program increase....... [4,000]
164 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D......... 71,362 71,362
165 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM 4,100 4,100
ASSESSMENTS.
166 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY 1,956 1,956
INITIATIVE (DOSI).
167 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL 10,321 10,321
SUPPORT.
170 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION 11,552 11,552
OPERATIONS (IO)
CAPABILITIES.
172 0305193D8Z CYBER INTELLIGENCE......... 6,748 6,748
174 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT 44,005 44,005
AND TRAINING
TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2).
175 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA......... 36,998 36,998
176 0901598D8W MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS WHS 612 612
177A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 44,367 44,367
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 887,876 4,000 891,876
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
178 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM 3,988 3,988
(ESS).
179 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL 1,750 1,750
OUTREACH (RIO) AND
PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
INFORMATION MANA.
180 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN 286 286
ASSISTANCE SHARED
INFORMATION SYSTEM
(OHASIS).
181 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS 14,778 14,778
AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT.
182 0607310D8Z OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 2,953 2,953
DEVELOPMENT.
183 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY 10,350 10,350
COOPERATION MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-
TSCMIS).
184 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 28,496 28,496
DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT).
185 0607828J JOINT INTEGRATION AND 11,968 11,968
INTEROPERABILITY.
186 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID 1,842 1,842
SYSTEM (PDAS).
187 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY....... 63,558 63,558
189 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION 3,931 3,931
INFORMATION SHARING.
193 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND 924 924
SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT.
194 0302019K DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE 9,657 9,657
ENGINEERING AND
INTEGRATION.
195 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS-- 25,355 25,355
DCS.
196 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY 12,671 12,671
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
(MEECN).
197 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE 222 222
(PKI).
198 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT 32,698 32,698
INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI).
199 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS 11,304 11,304
SECURITY PROGRAM.
200 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS 125,854 20,000 145,854
SECURITY PROGRAM.
......................... Accelerate SHARKSEER [20,000]
deployment.
202 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL 33,793 33,793
SYSTEM.
203 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM 13,423 13,423
ORGANIZATION.
204 0303170K NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE 3,774 3,774
SERVICES (NCES).
205 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION 951 951
PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO).
206 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM........... 2,697 2,697
208 0304210BB SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR 19,294 19,294
CONTINGENCIES.
212 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE.. 3,234 3,234
213 0305125D8Z CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 8,846 8,846
PROTECTION (CIP).
217 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS........ 7,065 7,065
218 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY............. 23,984 23,984
221 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 5,286 5,286
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
224 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 3,400 3,400
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
229 0305327V INSIDER THREAT............. 8,670 8,670
230 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 2,110 2,110
TRANSFER PROGRAM.
239 0708011S INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.... 22,366 22,366
240 0708012S LOGISTICS SUPPORT 1,574 1,574
ACTIVITIES.
241 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ--OJCS........ 4,409 4,409
242 1105219BB MQ-9 UAV................... 9,702 9,702
243 1105232BB RQ-11 UAV.................. 259 259
245 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS........... 164,233 164,233
247 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS 9,490 9,490
DEVELOPMENT.
248 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS... 75,253 75,253
252 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS............ 24,661 24,661
253 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS........... 20,908 20,908
259 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES...... 3,672 3,672
262 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS........... 57,905 57,905
264 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE 3,788 3,788
ACTIVITIES.
265 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS 16,225 16,225
INTELLIGENCE.
265A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 3,118,502 -5,000 3,113,502
......................... Classified adjustment.. [-5,000]
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 4,032,059 15,000 4,047,059
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 16,766,084 223,348 16,989,432
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
DEFENSE
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
001 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND 74,583 74,583
EVALUATION.
002 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND 45,142 45,142
EVALUATION.
003 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES 48,013 5,000 53,013
AND ANALYSES.
......................... Information Assurance [5,000]
Testing and Exercises.
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 167,738 5,000 172,738
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST 167,738 5,000 172,738
& EVAL, DEFENSE.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RDT&E........... 63,533,947 257,452 63,791,399
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 House
Line Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 969,281 100,000 1,069,281
Restore Critical Operations Tempo........... [100,000]
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 61,990 61,990
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 450,987 -500 450,487
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 545,773 -2,000 543,773
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-1,000]
facilities maintenance......................
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 1,057,453 -11,000 1,046,453
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-10,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-1,000]
facilities maintenance......................
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 1,409,347 138,600 1,547,947
Restore Critical Aviation Readiness......... [100,000]
UH-60A to UH-60L Conversions/ARNG [38,600]
Modernization...............................
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 3,592,334 -25,000 3,567,334
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-19,500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-5,500]
facilities maintenance......................
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 411,388 411,388
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 1,001,232 99,500 1,100,732
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
Restore Critical Depot Maintenance.......... [100,000]
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 7,428,972 -82,000 7,346,972
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-27,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-55,000]
facilities maintenance......................
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 2,066,434 -90,000 1,976,434
MODERNIZATION..................................
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-7,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-58,000]
facilities maintenance......................
Transfer to Arlington National Cemetery..... [-25,000]
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 411,863 -500 411,363
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 179,399 -500 178,899
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
170 COMBATANT COMMANDS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT....... 432,281 -2,500 429,781
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,500]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 20,018,734 124,100 20,142,834
MOBILIZATION
180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY.............................. 316,776 -1,000 315,776
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
190 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS....................... 187,609 -1,500 186,109
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,500]
200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS......................... 6,463 80,000 86,463
Industrial Base Intiative-Body Armor........ [80,000]
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 510,848 77,500 588,348
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
210 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 124,766 -1,000 123,766
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
220 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 51,968 -500 51,468
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING....................... 43,735 43,735
240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.......... 456,563 -500 456,063
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 886,529 -10,500 876,029
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-8,500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-2,000]
facilities maintenance......................
260 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 890,070 890,070
270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 193,291 -3,000 190,291
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
280 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 552,359 -1,000 551,359
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 466,927 -5,500 461,427
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-5,500]
300 EXAMINING....................................... 194,588 194,588
310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 205,782 -8,000 197,782
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-8,000]
320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 150,571 -1,500 149,071
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,500]
330 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS........... 169,784 -7,000 162,784
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-7,000]
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 4,386,933 -38,500 4,348,433
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 541,877 541,877
360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES....................... 722,291 722,291
370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES..................... 602,034 2,000 604,034
Corrosion Mitigation Activities............. [5,000]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT........................... 422,277 -2,500 419,777
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-2,000]
facilities maintenance......................
390 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 405,442 -500 404,942
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 1,624,742 -2,000 1,622,742
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-1,500]
facilities maintenance......................
410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 289,771 -500 289,271
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 390,924 -5,500 385,424
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-5,500]
430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT........................... 1,118,540 -1,500 1,117,040
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,500]
440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES.......................... 241,234 -1,500 239,734
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,500]
450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 243,509 -1,000 242,509
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
460 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS........ 200,615 -1,500 199,115
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,500]
470 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS............. 462,591 -500 462,091
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS.................. 27,375 27,375
520A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,030,411 -1,000 1,029,411
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 8,323,633 -16,000 8,307,633
UNDISTRIBUTED
530 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -516,200 -516,200
Civilian personnel underexecution........... [-80,000]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-48,900]
Unobligated balances........................ [-387,300]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -516,200 -516,200
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........ 33,240,148 -369,100 32,871,048
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 15,200 15,200
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 502,664 29,500 532,164
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Restore Critical Operations Tempo........... [30,000]
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 107,489 107,489
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 543,989 543,989
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 72,963 72,963
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 360,082 -2,000 358,082
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 72,491 72,491
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 58,873 35,000 93,873
Restore Critical Depot Maintenance.......... [35,000]
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 388,961 -2,500 386,461
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,500]
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 228,597 -9,500 219,097
MODERNIZATION..................................
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-9,000]
facilities maintenance......................
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 39,590 39,590
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 2,390,899 50,500 2,441,399
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 10,608 10,608
140 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 18,587 18,587
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 6,681 6,681
160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 9,192 9,192
170 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 54,602 -500 54,102
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 99,670 -500 99,170
UNDISTRIBUTED
180 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -38,700 -38,700
Unobligated balances........................ [-38,700]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -38,700 -38,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.... 2,490,569 11,300 2,501,869
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 660,648 249,100 909,748
National Guard combat training center [70,000]
rotations activities........................
National Guard critical operations tempo [99,600]
activities..................................
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Restore Critical Operations Tempo........... [80,000]
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 165,942 165,942
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 733,800 733,800
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 83,084 83,084
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 22,005 22,005
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 920,085 920,085
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 680,887 -7,000 673,887
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-5,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-2,000]
facilities maintenance......................
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 69,726 69,726
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 138,263 47,600 185,863
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-1,500]
facilities maintenance......................
Restore Critical Depot Maintenance.......... [49,600]
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 804,517 -12,500 792,017
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-10,000]
facilities maintenance......................
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 490,205 -18,500 471,705
MODERNIZATION..................................
Reduction in service contracts for [-18,500]
facilities maintenance......................
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 872,140 -1,000 871,140
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 5,641,302 257,700 5,899,002
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 6,690 6,690
140 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 1,765 1,765
150 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 63,075 2,000 65,075
National Guard State Partnership Program.... [2,000]
160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 37,372 37,372
170 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 6,484 6,484
180 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 274,085 -4,500 269,585
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-4,500]
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 389,471 -2,500 386,971
UNDISTRIBUTED
190 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -72,400 -72,400
Unobligated balances........................ [-72,400]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -72,400 -72,400
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........ 6,030,773 182,800 6,213,573
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 4,947,202 55,000 5,002,202
FHP Unit Level Maintenance.................. [56,000]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
020 FLEET AIR TRAINING.............................. 1,647,943 11,500 1,659,443
FHP Unit Level Maintenance.................. [12,000]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES.. 37,050 37,050
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 96,139 -500 95,639
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT............................. 363,763 -1,000 362,763
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 814,770 121,100 935,870
Aviation Depot Maintenance.................. [111,000]
CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) [10,100]
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 36,494 36,494
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 350,641 122,500 473,141
Aviation Logistics......................... [123,000]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 3,865,379 94,500 3,959,879
Joint High Speed Vessel Operations......... [10,000]
CLF steaming days........................... [13,000]
Corrosion Mitigation Activities............. [5,000]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-5,500]
T-AKEs to Full Operational Status........... [72,000]
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 711,243 -1,500 709,743
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-1,000]
facilities maintenance......................
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 5,296,408 31,200 5,327,608
CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) [33,700]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 1,339,077 -3,200 1,335,877
CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) [300]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-3,500]
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 708,634 -2,000 706,634
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,000]
140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE.............................. 91,599 -500 91,099
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE.................. 207,038 -500 206,538
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
160 WARFARE TACTICS................................. 432,715 -1,000 431,715
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY........ 338,116 -500 337,616
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 892,316 -1,000 891,316
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE........................... 128,486 128,486
200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT........................ 2,472 2,472
210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 101,200 -500 100,700
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 188,920 -2,500 186,420
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,500]
230 CRUISE MISSILE.................................. 109,911 109,911
240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE......................... 1,172,823 1,172,823
250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.............. 104,139 104,139
260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 490,911 -500 490,411
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................... 324,861 -1,000 323,861
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
290 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.......................... 936,743 -2,500 934,243
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,500]
300 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 1,483,495 -60,500 1,422,995
Reduction in service contracts for [-60,500]
facilities maintenance......................
310 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 4,398,667 -34,500 4,364,167
Reduction in service contracts for [-34,500]
facilities maintenance......................
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 31,619,155 322,100 31,941,255
MOBILIZATION
320 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE................... 526,926 526,926
330 READY RESERVE FORCE............................. 195 195
340 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.............. 6,704 6,704
350 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.................. 251,538 -46,000 205,538
CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) [-46,000]
360 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS........... 124,323 124,323
370 INDUSTRIAL READINESS............................ 2,323 2,323
380 COAST GUARD SUPPORT............................. 20,333 20,333
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 932,342 -46,000 886,342
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
390 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 156,214 -500 155,714
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
400 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 8,863 100 8,963
CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) [100]
410 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS................. 148,150 148,150
420 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 601,501 2,700 604,201
CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) [7,200]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-4,500]
430 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 8,239 8,239
440 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 164,214 1,148 165,362
CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) [1,000]
Naval Sea Cadets............................ [1,148]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
450 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 182,619 400 183,019
CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) [900]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
460 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 230,589 -500 230,089
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
470 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 115,595 -1,500 114,095
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,500]
480 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 79,606 -500 79,106
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
490 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 41,664 -2,000 39,664
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,000]
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 1,737,254 -652 1,736,602
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
500 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 858,871 -6,000 852,871
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-6,000]
510 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.............................. 12,807 12,807
520 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 119,863 119,863
530 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 356,113 -3,100 353,013
CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) [900]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-4,000]
540 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 255,605 -500 255,105
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
550 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 339,802 -2,000 337,802
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,000]
570 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 172,203 172,203
590 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN................ 283,621 -1,000 282,621
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
600 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 1,111,464 -1,000 1,110,464
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
610 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT......... 43,232 43,232
620 COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS.......................... 25,689 25,689
630 SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS............ 73,159 -500 72,659
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
640 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE..................... 548,640 -500 548,140
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
700 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES......... 4,713 4,713
720A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 531,324 -1,000 530,324
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 4,737,106 -15,600 4,721,506
UNDISTRIBUTED
730 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -402,900 -402,900
Civilian personnel underexecution........... [-80,000]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-74,200]
Unobligated balances........................ [-248,700]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -402,900 -402,900
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........ 39,025,857 -143,052 38,882,805
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 905,744 38,300 944,044
Corrosion Mitigation Activities............. [5,000]
Crisis Response Operations Unfunded [33,800]
Requirement.................................
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
020 FIELD LOGISTICS................................. 921,543 -1,000 920,543
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 229,058 51,000 280,058
Restore Critical Depot Maintenance.......... [51,000]
040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING......................... 87,660 87,660
050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION........ 573,926 -17,000 556,926
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-16,000]
facilities maintenance......................
060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 1,983,118 -5,500 1,977,618
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-4,000]
facilities maintenance......................
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 4,701,049 65,800 4,766,849
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
070 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 18,227 18,227
080 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 948 948
090 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 98,448 98,448
100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 42,305 42,305
110 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 330,156 -2,000 328,156
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-1,500]
facilities maintenance......................
120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 161,752 161,752
130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 19,137 -500 18,637
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
140 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 23,277 23,277
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 694,250 -2,500 691,750
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 36,359 36,359
160 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 362,608 -10,100 352,508
Marine Museum Unjustified Growth............ [-9,100]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 70,515 70,515
180A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 44,706 44,706
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 514,188 -10,100 504,088
UNDISTRIBUTED
190 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -109,900 -109,900
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-28,400]
Unobligated balances........................ [-81,500]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -109,900 -109,900
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 5,909,487 -56,700 5,852,787
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 565,842 7,900 573,742
CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) [7,900]
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE........................ 5,948 5,948
040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 82,636 2,300 84,936
CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) [2,300]
050 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 353 353
060 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 7,007 7,007
070 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 8,190 8,190
080 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 556 556
090 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 4,571 4,571
100 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 14,472 14,472
110 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 119,056 119,056
120 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 1,852 1,852
130 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.......................... 25,354 25,354
140 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 48,271 -2,000 46,271
Reduction in service contracts for [-2,000]
facilities maintenance......................
150 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 101,921 -500 101,421
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 986,029 7,700 993,729
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 1,520 1,520
170 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 12,998 12,998
180 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 3,395 3,395
190 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 3,158 3,158
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 21,071 21,071
UNDISTRIBUTED
210 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -10,500 -10,500
Unobligated balances........................ [-10,500]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -10,500 -10,500
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.... 1,007,100 -2,800 1,004,300
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES................................ 93,093 93,093
020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 18,377 18,377
030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 29,232 -1,500 27,732
Reduction in service contracts for [-1,500]
facilities maintenance......................
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 106,447 -1,000 105,447
Reduction in service contracts for [-1,000]
facilities maintenance......................
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 247,149 -2,500 244,649
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 914 914
060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 11,831 11,831
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 8,688 8,688
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 21,433 21,433
UNDISTRIBUTED
080 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -100 -100
Unobligated balances........................ [-100]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -100 -100
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.. 268,582 -2,600 265,982
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 3,163,457 93,100 3,256,557
Corrosion Prevention........................ [5,000]
Cyber Weapon System Ops..................... [50,000]
Cyberspace Defense Weapon System and Cyber [30,000]
Mission Forces..............................
Nuclear Force Improvement Program--Security [8,600]
Forces......................................
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES....................... 1,694,339 -8,000 1,686,339
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-8,000]
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS).. 1,579,178 -4,500 1,574,678
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-2,500]
facilities maintenance......................
040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 6,119,522 -8,000 6,111,522
RC/OC-135 Contractor Logistics Support [-8,000]
Unjustified Growth..........................
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 1,453,589 -5,600 1,447,989
MODERNIZATION..................................
Nuclear Force Improvement Program-- [3,400]
Installation Surety.........................
Reduction in service contracts for [-9,000]
facilities maintenance......................
060 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 2,599,419 -12,000 2,587,419
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-10,000]
facilities maintenance......................
070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING.................... 908,790 11,071 919,861
Program increase............................ [14,571]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-2,000]
facilities maintenance......................
080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS................... 856,306 6,600 862,906
Nuclear Force Improvement Program--ICBM [9,600]
Training Hardware...........................
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-3,000]
090 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES..... 800,689 -500 800,189
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
100 LAUNCH FACILITIES............................... 282,710 282,710
110 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS........................... 397,818 -500 397,318
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
120 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 871,840 12,600 884,440
PACOM Prepositioned Munition Shortfall [19,100]
Mitigation..................................
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-6,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 237,348 237,348
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 20,965,005 84,271 21,049,276
MOBILIZATION
140 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.............................. 1,968,810 -2,500 1,966,310
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,500]
150 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS....................... 139,743 -500 139,243
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
160 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,534,560 1,534,560
170 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 173,627 -2,000 171,627
MODERNIZATION..................................
Reduction in service contracts for [-2,000]
facilities maintenance......................
180 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 688,801 -2,500 686,301
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-2,000]
facilities maintenance......................
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 4,505,541 -7,500 4,498,041
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
190 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 82,396 82,396
200 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 19,852 19,852
210 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).......... 76,134 -3,000 73,134
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-3,000]
220 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 212,226 -3,500 208,726
MODERNIZATION..................................
Reduction in service contracts for [-3,500]
facilities maintenance......................
230 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 759,809 -5,500 754,309
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-4,500]
facilities maintenance......................
240 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 356,157 356,157
250 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 697,594 -3,000 694,594
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-2,500]
facilities maintenance......................
260 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 219,441 -1,000 218,441
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
270 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 91,001 91,001
280 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 316,688 316,688
290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 73,920 73,920
300 EXAMINING....................................... 3,121 3,121
310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 181,718 -7,500 174,218
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-7,500]
320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 147,667 -500 147,167
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
330 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 63,250 -3,000 60,250
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-3,000]
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 3,300,974 -27,000 3,273,974
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
340 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS............................ 1,003,513 40,500 1,044,013
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
SDT Program................................. [41,000]
350 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.................... 843,449 -2,000 841,449
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,000]
360 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 78,126 78,126
370 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 247,677 -3,500 244,177
MODERNIZATION..................................
Reduction in service contracts for [-3,500]
facilities maintenance......................
380 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 1,103,442 -7,000 1,096,442
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-5,500]
facilities maintenance......................
390 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 597,234 -1,000 596,234
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 506,840 506,840
410 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.................... 892,256 -3,000 889,256
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-2,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-1,000]
facilities maintenance......................
420 CIVIL AIR PATROL................................ 24,981 24,981
450 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT........................... 92,419 -500 91,919
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
450A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,169,736 -10,500 1,159,236
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-9,500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-1,000]
facilities maintenance......................
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 6,559,673 13,000 6,572,673
UNDISTRIBUTED
460 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -242,900 -242,900
Civilian personnel underexecution........... [-80,000]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-51,900]
Readiness support........................... [221,500]
Unobligated balances........................ [-332,500]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -242,900 -242,900
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE... 35,331,193 -180,129 35,151,064
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 1,719,467 1,719,467
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 211,132 211,132
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 530,301 530,301
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 85,672 -1,000 84,672
MODERNIZATION..................................
Reduction in service contracts for [-1,000]
facilities maintenance......................
050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 367,966 -2,500 365,466
Reduction in service contracts for [-2,500]
facilities maintenance......................
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 2,914,538 -3,500 2,911,038
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 59,899 59,899
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 14,509 14,509
080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC).......... 20,345 20,345
090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)............ 6,551 6,551
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 101,304 101,304
ACTIVITIES..................................
UNDISTRIBUTED
110 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -13,400 -13,400
Unobligated balances........................ [-13,400]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -13,400 -13,400
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.. 3,015,842 -16,900 2,998,942
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS............................. 3,367,729 -1,000 3,366,729
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 718,295 -1,000 717,295
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,528,695 1,528,695
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 137,604 -4,000 133,604
MODERNIZATION..................................
Reduction in service contracts for [-4,000]
facilities maintenance......................
050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 581,536 -12,500 569,036
Reduction in service contracts for [-12,500]
facilities maintenance......................
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 6,333,859 -18,500 6,315,359
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 27,812 27,812
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 31,188 -500 30,688
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE 59,000 -500 58,500
ACTIVITIES..................................
UNDISTRIBUTED
080 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -800 -800
Unobligated balances........................ [-800]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -800 -800
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG......... 6,392,859 -19,800 6,373,059
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF........................... 462,107 -1,500 460,607
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,500]
020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES..... 4,762,245 -54,300 4,707,945
MSV--USSOCOM Maritime Support Vessel........ [-20,300]
NCR--USSOCOM National Capitol Region Office. [-5,000]
POTFF--Human Performance.................... [-23,300]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-26,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-5,000]
facilities maintenance......................
RSCC--Regional Special Operations Forces [-3,600]
Coordination Centers........................
USSOCOM Flight Operations (Flight Hours).... [31,460]
USSOCOM Joint Special Operations University. [-2,560]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 5,224,352 -55,800 5,168,552
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
030 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY.................. 135,437 135,437
040 NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY..................... 80,082 80,082
050 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND 371,620 371,620
RECRUITING.....................................
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 587,139 587,139
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
060 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS......................... 119,888 21,000 140,888
STARBASE.................................... [21,000]
080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY................... 556,493 556,493
090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.............. 1,340,374 -500 1,339,874
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
100 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY................ 633,300 -20,000 613,300
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-20,000]
110 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.............. 1,263,678 -5,000 1,258,678
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-4,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-1,000]
facilities maintenance......................
130 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY................... 26,710 26,710
140 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY........................ 381,470 -1,000 380,470
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
150 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.......................... 194,520 -11,500 183,020
Program decrease............................ [-10,000]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,500]
160 DEFENSE POW/MIA OFFICE.......................... 21,485 21,485
170 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY............. 544,786 -21,000 523,786
Global Security Contingency Fund............ [-30,000]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership For Peace [10,000]
180 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE........................ 527,812 -500 527,312
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
200 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...... 32,787 32,787
230 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY........ 2,566,424 -14,500 2,551,924
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-6,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-8,500]
facilities maintenance......................
240 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.......................... 416,644 -1,500 415,144
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
Reduction in service contracts for [-500]
facilities maintenance......................
260 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT................... 186,987 -80,596 106,391
Office of Economic Adjustment............... [-80,596]
265 OFFICE OF NET ASSESSMENT........................ 18,944 18,944
Program increase............................ [10,000]
Transfer from line 270...................... [8,944]
270 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 1,891,163 -100,744 1,790,419
BRAC 2015 Round Planning and Analyses....... [-4,800]
Corrosion Prevention Program Office......... [5,000]
DOD Rewards Program Underexecution.......... [-4,000]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-51,500]
Reduction in service contracts for [-36,500]
facilities maintenance......................
Transfer funding for Office of Net [-8,944]
Assessment to new line 265..................
280 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE 87,915 87,915
ACTIVITIES.....................................
290 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES................ 610,982 -1,000 609,982
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-1,000]
290A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 13,983,323 4,000 13,987,323
Classified adjustment....................... [10,000]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-6,000]
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 25,386,741 -213,896 25,172,845
ACTIVITIES..................................
UNDISTRIBUTED
300 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -280,400 -280,400
Civilian personnel underexecution........... [-75,000]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-17,500]
Impact Aid.................................. [25,000]
Unobligated balances........................ [-212,900]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -280,400 -280,400
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 31,198,232 -550,096 30,648,136
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, 13,723 13,723
DEFENSE........................................
020 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID... 100,000 4,500 104,500
Humanitarian Mine Action.................... [5,000]
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
030 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION.................... 365,108 -10,500 354,608
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-10,500]
040 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD............................ 212,875 -3,500 209,375
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-3,500]
050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY................. 201,560 201,560
060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY................. 277,294 277,294
070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE............ 408,716 408,716
080 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE.............. 8,547 8,547
090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES... 208,353 208,353
100 OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND... 5,000 -5,000
Program decrease............................ [-5,000]
110 SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL SPORTING COMPETITIONS, 10,000 -4,800 5,200
DEFENSE........................................
Reduction in contracts for Other Services... [-500]
Unjustified program increase................ [-4,300]
SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....... 1,811,176 -19,300 1,791,876
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS......... 1,811,176 -19,300 1,791,876
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 165,721,818 -1,166,377 164,555,441
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel Appropriations................... 128,957,593 49,430 129,007,023
Air Force airborne warning and control system 12,200
personnel......................................
CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)... [48,000]
Foreign Currency Adjustments................... [-193,200]
Military Personnel unobligated balances........ [-360,470]
Recalcualtion from CPI-1 to CPI................ [534,900]
Special training and exercises for National [8,000]
Guard State Partnership Program................
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions. 6,236,092 1,000 6,237,092
CVN 73 Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH)... [1,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2015 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS.................... 13,727 13,727
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 13,727 13,727
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS (MEDICAL/DENTAL)............. 61,717 61,717
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........ 61,717 61,717
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)...................... 44,293 44,293
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 44,293 44,293
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA.......................... 1,114,731 100,000 1,214,731
Working Capital Fund, DECA..................... [100,000]
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............. 1,114,731 100,000 1,214,731
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE............................. 222,728 222,728
RDT&E............................................... 595,913 595,913
PROCUREMENT......................................... 10,227 10,227
TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION.... 828,868 828,868
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 719,096 719,096
DEFENSE............................................
DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM....................... 101,591 101,591
TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG 820,687 820,687
ACTIVITIES, DEF..............................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 310,830 310,830
PROCUREMENT......................................... 1,000 1,000
TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........ 311,830 311,830
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
IN-HOUSE CARE....................................... 8,799,086 85,300 8,884,386
Implementation of Benefit Reform Proposal...... [-30,000]
Restoration of MHS Modernization............... [92,000]
USSOCOM Behavioral Health and Warrior Care [23,300]
Management Program.............................
PRIVATE SECTOR CARE................................. 15,412,599 -58,000 15,354,599
Implementation of Benefit Reform Proposal...... [-58,000]
CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT......................... 2,462,096 2,462,096
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.............................. 1,557,347 1,557,347
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES............................... 366,223 366,223
EDUCATION AND TRAINING.............................. 750,866 750,866
BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS...................... 1,683,694 1,683,694
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
R&D RESEARCH........................................ 10,317 10,000 20,317
Surgical Critical Care Research................ [10,000]
R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT.......................... 49,015 49,015
R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT............................ 226,410 226,410
R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION........................ 97,787 97,787
R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT......................... 217,898 217,898
R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT.......................... 38,075 38,075
R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT........................ 15,092 15,092
PROCUREMENT
PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING............................. 13,057 13,057
PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION.................... 283,030 283,030
PROC THEATER MEDICAL INFORMATION PROGRAM............ 3,145 3,145
PROC IEHR........................................... 9,181 9,181
UNDISTRIBUTED
UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... -161,857 -424,700 -586,557
Foreign Currency adjustments................... [-13,100]
Unobligated balances........................... [-411,600]
TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................. 31,833,061 -387,400 31,445,661
TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS................... 35,028,914 -287,400 34,741,514
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 House
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request House Change Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army CALIFORNIA Concord Access Control Point... 9,900 9,900
Army CALIFORNIA Concord General Purpose 5,300 5,300
Maintenance Shop.
Army CALIFORNIA Fort Irwin Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 45,000 45,000
Hangar.
Army COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Aircraft Maintenance 60,000 60,000
Hangar.
Army COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 29,000 29,000
Hangar.
Army GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Dining Facility........ 12,000 12,000
Army GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Health Clinic.......... 11,800 11,800
Army GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay High Value Detainee 0 69,000 69,000
Complex.
Army HAWAII Fort Shafter Command and Control 96,000 -13,000 83,000
Facility (SCIF).
Army JAPAN Kadena AB Missile Magazine....... 10,600 10,600
Army KENTUCKY Blue Grass Army Depot Shipping and Receiving 0 15,000 15,000
Building.
Army KENTUCKY Fort Campbell, Kentucky Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 23,000 23,000
Hangar.
Army NEW YORK Fort Drum, New York Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 27,000 27,000
Hangar.
Army NEW YORK U.S. Military Academy Cadet Barracks, Incr 3. 58,000 58,000
Army PENNSYLVANIA Letterkenny Army Depot Rebuild Shop........... 16,000 16,000
Army SOUTH CAROLINA Fort Jackson Trainee Barracks 52,000 52,000
Complex 3, Ph1.
Army Texas Fort Hood Simulations Center..... 0 46,000 46,000
Army VIRGINIA Fort Lee Adv. Individual 0 86,000 86,000
Training Barracks
Complex, Phase 3.
Army VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley- Tactical Vehicle 7,700 7,700
Eustis Hardstand.
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Host Nation Support 33,000 33,000
Locations FY15.
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Minor Construction FY15 25,000 25,000
Locations
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design 18,127 18,127
Locations FY15.
Total Military Construction, Army 539,427 203,000 742,427
.................................. ........................
Navy ARIZONA Yuma Aviation Maintenance 16,608 16,608
and Support Complex.
Navy BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia P-8A Hangar............ 27,826 27,826
Navy CALIFORNIA Bridgeport E-LMR Communications 16,180 16,180
Towers.
Navy CALIFORNIA San Diego Steam Distribution 47,110 47,110
System
Decentralization.
Navy DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA District Of Columbia Electronics Science and 31,735 31,735
Technology Laboratory.
Navy DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier, Djibouti Entry Control Point.... 9,923 9,923
Navy FLORIDA Jacksonville MH60 Parking Apron..... 8,583 8,583
Navy FLORIDA Jacksonville P-8A Runway Thresholds 21,652 21,652
and Taxiways.
Navy FLORIDA Mayport LCS Operational 20,520 20,520
Training Facility.
Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas GSE Shops at North Ramp 21,880 21,880
Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas MWSS Facilities at 28,771 28,771
North Ramp.
Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Facility Modifications 51,182 51,182
for VMU, MWSD, & CH53E.
Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Road and Infrastructure 2,200 2,200
Improvements.
Navy HAWAII Pearl Harbor Submarine Maneuvering 9,698 9,698
Room Trainer Facility.
Navy JAPAN Iwakuni Security Mods DPRI 6,415 6,415
MC167-T (CVW-5 E2D EA-
18G).
Navy JAPAN Kadena AB Aircraft Maint Hangar 19,411 19,411
Alterations and SAP-F.
Navy JAPAN MCAS Futenma Hangar & Rinse Facility 4,639 4,639
Modernizations.
Navy JAPAN Okinawa LHD Practice Site 35,685 35,685
Improvements.
Navy MARYLAND Annapolis Center for Cyber 120,112 -20,000 100,112
Security Studies
Building.
Navy MARYLAND Indian Head Advanced Energetics 15,346 15,346
Research Lab Complex
Ph 2.
Navy MARYLAND Patuxent River Atlantic Test Range 9,860 9,860
Facility.
Navy NEVADA Fallon Air Wing Training 27,763 27,763
Facility.
Navy NEVADA Fallon Facility Alteration for 3,499 3,499
F-35 Training Mission.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine Water Treatment Plant 41,588 41,588
Corps Air Station Replacement.
Navy PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia Ohio Replacement Power 23,985 23,985
& Propulsion Facility.
Navy SOUTH CAROLINA Charleston Nuclear Power 35,716 35,716
Operational Support
Facility.
Navy SPAIN Rota Ship Berthing Power 20,233 20,233
Upgrades.
Navy VIRGINIA Dahlgren Missile Support 27,313 27,313
Facility.
Navy VIRGINIA Norfolk EOD Consolidated Ops & 39,274 39,274
Logistics Facilities.
Navy VIRGINIA Portsmouth Submarine Maintenance 9,743 9,743
Facility.
Navy VIRGINIA Quantico Ammunition Supply Point 12,613 12,613
Expansion.
Navy VIRGINIA Yorktown Bachelor Enlisted 19,152 19,152
Quarters.
Navy VIRGINIA Yorktown FAST Company Training 7,836 7,836
Facility.
Navy WASHINGTON Bremerton Integrated Water 16,401 16,401
Treatment Syst. DD 1,
2, & 5.
Navy WASHINGTON Kitsap Explosives Handling 83,778 83,778
Wharf #2 (INC).
Navy WASHINGTON Port Angeles TPS Port Angeles 20,638 20,638
Forward Operating
Location.
Navy WASHINGTON Whidbey Island P-8A Aircraft Apron and 24,390 24,390
Supporting Facilities.
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide F-35C Facility Addition 16,594 16,594
Locations and Modification.
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide F-35C Operational 22,391 22,391
Locations Training Facility.
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCON Design Funds...... 33,366 33,366
Locations
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 7,163 7,163
Locations Construction.
Total Military Construction, Navy 1,018,772 -20,000 998,772
.................................. ........................
AF ALASKA Clear AFS Emergency Power Plant 11,500 11,500
Fuel Storage.
AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35 Aircraft Mx 11,200 11,200
Hangar--Sqdn #2.
AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35 Flightline 15,600 15,600
Fillstands.
AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas Guam Strike Fuel 64,000 64,000
Systems Maint.Hangar
Inc 2.
AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC--Combat Comm 3,750 3,750
Infrastr Facility.
AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC--RED HORSE 3,150 3,150
Logistics Facility.
AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC--Satellite Fire 6,500 6,500
Station.
AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC-46A ADAL Mobility 2,300 2,300
Bag Strg Expansion.
AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC-46A ADAL Regional Mx 16,100 16,100
Tng Facility.
AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC-46A Alter Composite 4,100 4,100
Mx Shop.
AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC-46A Alter Taxiway 5,500 5,500
Foxtrot.
AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC-46A Fuselage Trainer 6,400 6,400
AF MARYLAND Fort Meade CYBERCOM Joint 166,000 166,000
Operations Center,
Increment 2.
AF MASSACHUSETTS Hanscom AFB Dormitory (72 RM)...... 13,500 13,500
AF NEBRASKA Offutt AFB USSTRATCOM Replacement 180,000 180,000
Facility- Incr 4.
AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F-22 Flight Simulator 14,000 14,000
Facility.
AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F-35 Aircraft Mx Unit-- 31,000 31,000
4 Bay Hangar.
AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F-35 Weapons School 8,900 8,900
Facility.
AF NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-Dix- Fire Station........... 5,900 5,900
Lakehurst
AF OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC-46A Depot Maint 48,000 48,000
Complex Spt Infrastr.
AF OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC-46A Two-Bay Depot Mx 63,000 63,000
Hangar.
AF TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Fire Station........... 5,800 5,800
AF UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF JIAC Consolidation-- 92,223 92,223
Phase 1.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design.... 10,738 10,738
Locations
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor 22,613 22,613
Locations Military Construction.
Total Military Construction, Air Force 811,774 0 811,774
.................................. ........................
Def-Wide ARIZONA Fort Huachuca JITC Building 52120 1,871 1,871
Renovation.
Def-Wide AUSTRALIA Geraldton Combined Communications 9,600 9,600
Gateway Geraldton.
Def-Wide BELGIUM Brussels Brussells Elementary/ 41,626 41,626
High School
Replacement.
Def-Wide BELGIUM Brussels NATO Headquarters 37,918 37,918
Facility.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, SOF Comm/Elec 11,841 11,841
California Maintenance Facility.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Logistics Support 41,740 41,740
Unit 1 Ops Facility #1.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Support Activity 28,600 28,600
Ops Facility #2.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Lemoore Replace Fuel Storage & 52,500 52,500
Distribution Fac..
Def-Wide COLORADO Peterson AFB Dental Clinic 15,200 15,200
Replacement.
Def-Wide CONUS Various Locations East Coast Missile Site 0 20,000 20,000
Planning and Design.
Def-Wide CONUS CLASSIFIED Classified Location SOF Skills Training 53,073 53,073
Facility.
Def-Wide GEORGIA Hunter Army Airfield SOF Company Operations 7,692 7,692
Facility.
Def-Wide GEORGIA Robins AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel 19,900 19,900
System.
Def-Wide GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical Center 259,695 -70,000 189,695
Replacement Incr 4.
Def-Wide GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Replace Fuel Tank...... 11,100 11,100
Def-Wide GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay W.T. Sampson E/M and HS 65,190 65,190
Consolid./Replacement.
Def-Wide HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Replace Fuel Tanks..... 3,000 3,000
Hickam
Def-Wide HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Upgrade Fire Supression 49,900 49,900
Hickam & Ventilation Sys..
Def-Wide JAPAN Misawa AB Edgren High School 37,775 37,775
Renovation.
Def-Wide JAPAN Okinawa Killin Elementary 71,481 71,481
Replacement/Renovation.
Def-Wide JAPAN Okinawa Kubasaki High School 99,420 99,420
Replacement/Renovation.
Def-Wide JAPAN Sasebo E.J. King High School 37,681 37,681
Replacement/Renovation.
Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Campbell, Kentucky SOF System Integration 18,000 18,000
Maintenance Office Fac.
Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Campus Feeders 54,207 54,207
Phase 1.
Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize 45,521 45,521
Building #1/Site M Inc
3.
Def-Wide MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Construct Hydrant Fuel 18,300 18,300
System.
Def-Wide MICHIGAN Selfridge Angb Replace Fuel 35,100 35,100
Distribution
Facilities.
Def-Wide MISSISSIPPI Stennis SOF Applied Instruction 10,323 10,323
Facility.
Def-Wide MISSISSIPPI Stennis SOF Land Acquisition 17,224 17,224
Western Maneuver Area.
Def-Wide NEVADA Fallon SOF Tactical Ground 20,241 20,241
Mob. Vehicle Maint
Fac..
Def-Wide NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB SOF Squadron Operations 23,333 23,333
Facility (STS).
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North Lejeune High School 41,306 41,306
Carolina Addition/Renovation.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North SOF Intel/Ops Expansion 11,442 11,442
Carolina
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Battalion 37,074 37,074
Operations Facility.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Tactical Equipment 8,000 8,000
Maintenance Facility.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Training Command 48,062 48,062
Building.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel 8,500 8,500
System.
Def-Wide SOUTH CAROLINA Beaufort Replace Fuel 40,600 40,600
Distibution Facilities.
Def-Wide SOUTH DAKOTA Ellsworth AFB Construct Hydrant 8,000 8,000
System.
Def-Wide TEXAS Fort Bliss Hospital Replacement 131,500 70,000 201,500
Incr 6.
Def-Wide TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Medical Clinic 38,300 38,300
Replacement.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Craney Island Replace & Alter Fuel 36,500 36,500
Distibution Facilities.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Def Distribution Depot Replace Access Control 5,700 5,700
Richmond Point.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir Parking Lot............ 7,239 7,239
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley- Hopsital Addition/CUP 41,200 41,200
Eustis Replacement.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary Base SOF Human Performance 11,200 11,200
Little Creek--Story Center.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary Base SOF Indoor Dynamic 14,888 14,888
Little Creek--Story Range.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary Base SOF Mobile Comm Det 13,500 13,500
Little Creek--Story Support Facility.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon Redundant Chilled Water 15,100 15,100
Loop.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Contingency 9,000 -9,000 0
Locations Construction.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ECIP Design............ 10,000 10,000
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Energy Conservation 150,000 150,000
Locations Investment Program.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Exercise Related Minor 8,581 8,581
Locations Construction.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design.... 745 745
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design.... 38,704 -20,000 18,704
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design.... 1,183 1,183
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design.... 42,387 42,387
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design.... 599 599
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design.... 24,425 -20,000 4,425
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 5,932 5,932
Locations Construction.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 6,846 6,846
Locations Construction.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 10,334 10,334
Locations Construction.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 2,700 2,700
Locations Construction.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 2,000 2,000
Locations Construction.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 4,100 4,100
Locations Construction.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 2,994 2,994
Locations Milcon.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design.... 24,197 24,197
Locations
Total Military Construction, Defense-Wide 2,061,890 -29,000 2,032,890
.................................. ........................
Chem Demil KENTUCKY Blue Grass Army Depot Ammunition 38,715 38,715
Demilitarization Ph XV.
Total Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense 38,715 0 38,715
.................................. ........................
NATO WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Nato Security Investment Nato Security 199,700 199,700
Program Investment Program.
Total NATO Security Investment Program 199,700 0 199,700
.................................. ........................
Army NG DELAWARE Dagsboro National Guard Vehicle 0 10,800 10,800
Maintenance Shop.
Army NG MAINE Augusta National Guard Reserve 30,000 30,000
Center.
Army NG MARYLAND Havre De Grace National Guard 12,400 12,400
Readiness Center.
Army NG MONTANA Helena National Guard 38,000 38,000
Readiness Center Add/
Alt.
Army NG NEW MEXICO Alamogordo National Guard 0 5,000 5,000
Readiness Center.
Army NG NORTH DAKOTA Valley City National Guard Vehicle 10,800 10,800
Maintenance Shop.
Army NG VERMONT North Hyde Park National Guard Vehicle 4,400 4,400
Maintenance Shop.
Army NG WASHINGTON Yakima Enlisted Barracks, 0 19,000 19,000
Transient Training.
Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design.... 17,600 17,600
Locations
Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 13,720 13,720
Locations Construction.
Total Military Construction, Army National Guard 126,920 34,800 161,720
.................................. ........................
Army Res CALIFORNIA Fresno Army Reserve Center/ 22,000 22,000
AMSA.
Army Res CALIFORNIA March (Riverside) Army Reserve Center.... 0 25,000 25,000
Army Res COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Training Building 5,000 5,000
Addition.
Army Res ILLINOIS Arlington Heights Army Reserve Center.... 0 26,000 26,000
Army Res MISSISSIPPI Starkville Army Reserve Center.... 0 9,300 9,300
Army Res NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-Dix- Army Reserve Center.... 26,000 26,000
Lakehurst
Army Res NEW YORK Mattydale Army Reserve Center/ 23,000 23,000
AMSA.
Army Res VIRGINIA Fort Lee TASS Training Center... 16,000 16,000
Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design.... 8,337 8,337
Locations
Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 3,609 3,609
Locations Construction.
Total Military Construction, Army Reserve 103,946 60,300 164,246
.................................. ........................
N/MC Res PENNSYLVANIA Pittsburgh Reserve Training 17,650 17,650
Center--Pittsburgh, PA.
N/MC Res WASHINGTON Whidbey Island C-40 Aircraft 27,755 27,755
Maintenance Hangar.
N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCNR Planning & Design. 2,123 2,123
Locations
N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCNR Unspecified Minor 4,000 4,000
Locations Construction.
Total Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps Reserve 51,528 0 51,528
.................................. ........................
Air NG CONNECTICUT Bradley IAP Construct C-130 Fuel 16,306 16,306
Cell and Corrosion
Contr.
Air NG IOWA Des Moines Map REMOTELY PILOTED 8,993 8,993
AIRCRAFT AND TARGETING
GROUP.
Air NG MICHIGAN W. K. Kellog Regional RPA Beddown............ 6,000 6,000
Airport
Air NG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International KC-46A ADAL Airfield 7,100 7,100
Trade Port Pavements & Hydrant
Syst.
Air NG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International KC-46A ADAL Fuel Cell 16,800 16,800
Trade Port Building 253.
Air NG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International KC-46A ADAL Maint 18,002 18,002
Trade Port Hangar Building 254.
Air NG PENNSYLVANIA Willow Grove ARF RPA Operations Center.. 5,662 5,662
Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design.... 7,700 7,700
Locations
Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor 8,100 8,100
Locations Construction.
Total Military Construction, Air National Guard 94,663 0 94,663
.................................. ........................
AF Res GEORGIA Robins AFB AFRC Consolidated 27,700 27,700
Mission Complex, Ph I.
AF Res NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB KC-135 Tanker Parking 9,800 9,800
Apron Expansion.
AF Res TEXAS Fort Worth EOD Facility........... 3,700 3,700
AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design.... 6,892 6,892
Locations
AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor 1,400 1,400
Locations Military Construction.
Total Military Construction, Air Force Reserve 49,492 0 49,492
.................................. ........................
FH Con Army ILLINOIS Rock Island Family Housing New 19,500 19,500
Construction.
FH Con Army KOREA Camp Walker Family Housing New 57,800 57,800
Construction.
FH Con Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Family Housing P & D... 1,309 1,309
Locations
Total Family Housing Construction, Army 78,609 0 78,609
.................................. ........................
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............ 14,136 14,136
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leased Housing......... 112,504 112,504
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real 65,245 65,245
Locations Property Facilities.
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account..... 43,480 43,480
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account..... 3,117 3,117
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Military Housing 20,000 20,000
Locations Privitization
Initiative.
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous.......... 700 700
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services............... 9,108 9,108
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities.............. 82,686 82,686
Locations
Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Army 350,976 0 350,976
.................................. ........................
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account.... 38,543 38,543
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privatization.. 40,761 40,761
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................ 43,651 43,651
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............ 99,934 99,934
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account..... 47,834 47,834
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous Account.. 1,993 1,993
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services Account....... 12,709 12,709
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account...... 42,322 42,322
Locations
Total Family Housing Construction, Air Force 327,747 0 327,747
.................................. ........................
FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Design................. 472 472
Locations
FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Improvements........... 15,940 15,940
Locations
Total Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps 16,412 0 16,412
.................................. ........................
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account.... 17,881 17,881
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................ 65,999 65,999
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real 97,612 97,612
Locations Property.
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account..... 55,124 55,124
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous Account.. 366 366
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Privatization Support 27,876 27,876
Locations Costs.
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services Account....... 18,079 18,079
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account...... 71,092 71,092
Locations
Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps 354,029 0 354,029
.................................. ........................
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account.... 3,362 3,362
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account.... 20 20
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account.... 746 746
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................ 11,179 11,179
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................ 42,083 42,083
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real 2,128 2,128
Locations Property.
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real 344 344
Locations Property.
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account..... 378 378
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services Account....... 31 31
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account...... 170 170
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account...... 659 659
Locations
Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide 61,100 0 61,100
.................................. ........................
FHIF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Family Housing 1,662 1,662
Locations Improvement Fund.
Total DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund 1,662 0 1,662
.................................. ........................
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Base Realignment and 84,417 84,417
Closure, Army Closure.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Base Realignment & 57,406 57,406
Closure, Navy Closure.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DoD BRAC Activities-- 90,976 90,976
Locations Air Force.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-100: Planing, 7,682 7,682
Locations Design and Management.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-101: Various 21,416 21,416
Locations Locations.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-138: NAS Brunswick, 904 904
Locations ME.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-157: MCSA Kansas 40 40
Locations City, MO.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-172: NWS Seal 6,066 6,066
Locations Beach, Concord, CA.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-84: JRB Willow 1,178 1,178
Locations Grove & Cambria Reg AP.
Total Base Realignment and Closure Account 270,085 0 270,085
.................................. ........................
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 42 USC 3374............ 0 -100,000 -100,000
Locations
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Army................... 0 -79,577 -79,577
Locations
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide NATO Security 0 -25,000 -25,000
Locations Investment Program.
Total Prior Year Savings 0 -204,577 -204,577
.................................. ........................
GR WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide General Reductions..... 0 -69,000 -69,000
Locations
Total General Reductions 0 -69,000 -69,000
.................................. ........................
Total Military Construction 6,557,447 -24,477 6,532,970
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
SECURITY PROGRAMS
SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House
Program FY 2015 Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Summary By Appropriation
Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies
Appropriation Summary:
Energy Programs
Nuclear Energy...................................... 104,000 104,000
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National nuclear security administration:
Weapons activities................................ 8,314,902 147,700 8,462,602
Defense nuclear nonproliferation.................. 1,555,156 10,000 1,565,156
Naval reactors.................................... 1,377,100 10,000 1,387,100
Federal salaries and expenses..................... 410,842 -24,000 386,842
Total, National nuclear security administration..... 11,658,000 143,700 11,801,700
Environmental and other defense activities:
Defense environmental cleanup..................... 5,327,538 -457,000 4,870,538
Other defense activities.......................... 753,000 5,300 758,300
Total, Environmental & other defense activities..... 6,080,538 -451,700 5,628,838
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............... 17,738,538 -308,000 17,430,538
Total, Discretionary Funding.............................. 17,842,538 -308,000 17,534,538
Nuclear Energy
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.................. 104,000 104,000
Weapons Activities
Directed stockpile work
Life extension programs
B61 Life extension program.......................... 643,000 643,000
W76 Life extension program.......................... 259,168 14,600 273,768
W88 Alt 370......................................... 165,400 1,200 166,600
Cruise missile warhead life extension program....... 9,418 7,600 17,018
Total, Life extension programs........................ 1,076,986 23,400 1,100,386
Stockpile systems
B61 Stockpile systems............................... 109,615 109,615
W76 Stockpile systems............................... 45,728 45,728
W78 Stockpile systems............................... 62,703 3,700 66,403
W80 Stockpile systems............................... 70,610 70,610
B83 Stockpile systems............................... 63,136 63,136
W87 Stockpile systems............................... 91,255 91,255
W88 Stockpile systems............................... 88,060 88,060
Total, Stockpile systems.............................. 531,107 3,700 534,807
Weapons dismantlement and disposition
Operations and maintenance.......................... 30,008 30,008
Stockpile services
Production support.................................. 350,942 12,300 363,242
Research and development support.................... 29,649 29,649
R&D certification and safety........................ 201,479 11,000 212,479
Management, technology, and production.............. 241,805 241,805
Plutonium sustainment............................... 144,575 28,300 172,875
Tritium readiness................................... 140,053 140,053
Total, Stockpile services............................. 1,108,503 51,600 1,160,103
Total, Directed stockpile work.......................... 2,746,604 78,700 2,825,304
Campaigns:
Science campaign
Advanced certification.............................. 58,747 58,747
Primary assessment technologies..................... 112,000 112,000
Dynamic materials properties........................ 117,999 117,999
Advanced radiography................................ 79,340 79,340
Secondary assessment technologies................... 88,344 88,344
Total, Science campaign............................... 456,430 456,430
Engineering campaign
Enhanced surety..................................... 52,003 2,400 54,403
Weapon systems engineering assessment technology.... 20,832 20,832
Nuclear survivability............................... 25,371 25,371
Enhanced surveillance............................... 37,799 3,600 41,399
Total, Engineering campaign........................... 136,005 6,000 142,005
Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
campaign
Ignition............................................ 77,994 0 77,994
Support of other stockpile programs................. 23,598 23,598
Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support.... 61,297 61,297
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............ 5,024 5,024
Joint program in high energy density laboratory 9,100 9,100
plasmas............................................
Facility operations and target production........... 335,882 335,882
Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield 512,895 512,895
campaign.............................................
Advanced simulation and computing campaign............ 610,108 610,108
Nonnuclear Readiness Campaign......................... 125,909 125,909
Total, Campaigns........................................ 1,841,347 6,000 1,847,347
Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF)
Operations of facilities
Kansas City Plant..................................... 125,000 125,000
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.............. 71,000 71,000
Los Alamos National Laboratory...................... 198,000 198,000
Nevada National Security Site....................... 89,000 89,000
Pantex.............................................. 75,000 75,000
Sandia National Laboratory.......................... 106,000 106,000
Savannah River Site................................. 81,000 81,000
Y-12 National security complex...................... 151,000 151,000
Total, Operations of facilities....................... 896,000 896,000
Program readiness..................................... 136,700 136,700
Material recycle and recovery......................... 138,900 138,900
Containers............................................ 26,000 26,000
Storage............................................... 40,800 40,800
Maintenance and repair of facilities.................. 205,000 15,000 220,000
Recapitalization...................................... 209,321 39,000 248,321
Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities.... 756,721 54,000 810,721
Construction:
15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12.......... 2,000 2,000
15-D-612 Emergency Operations Center, LLNL.......... 2,000 2,000
15-D-611 Emergency Operations Center, SNL........... 4,000 4,000
15-D-301 HE Science & Engineering Facility, PX...... 11,800 11,800
15-D-302, TA-55 Reinvestment project, Phase 3, LANL. 16,062 16,062
12-D-301 TRU waste facilities, LANL................. 6,938 6,938
11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL... 10,000 10,000
07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility 15,000 15,000
upgrade project, LANL..............................
06-D-141 PED/Construction, Uranium Capabilities 335,000 335,000
Replacement Project Y-12...........................
Total, Construction................................... 402,800 402,800
Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities....... 2,055,521 54,000 2,109,521
Secure transportation asset
Operations and equipment.............................. 132,851 132,851
Program direction..................................... 100,962 100,962
Total, Secure transportation asset...................... 233,813 233,813
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response.............. 173,440 9,000 182,440
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs...... 76,901 76,901
Site stewardship
Environmental projects and operations................. 53,000 53,000
Nuclear materials integration......................... 16,218 16,218
Minority serving institution partnerships program..... 13,231 13,231
Total, Site stewardship................................. 82,449 82,449
Defense nuclear security
Operations and maintenance............................ 618,123 618,123
Total, Defense nuclear security......................... 618,123 618,123
Information technology and cybersecurity................ 179,646 179,646
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 307,058 307,058
Total, Weapons Activities................................. 8,314,902 147,700 8,462,602
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
Global threat reduction initiative.................... 333,488 80,000 413,488
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
Operations and maintenance.......................... 360,808 70,000 430,808
Nonproliferation and international security........... 141,359 36,400 177,759
International material protection and cooperation..... 305,467 -176,400 129,067
Fissile materials disposition
U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition
Operations and maintenance
U.S. plutonium disposition...................... 85,000 85,000
U.S. uranium disposition........................ 25,000 25,000
Total, Operations and maintenance................. 110,000 110,000
Construction:
99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, 196,000 0 196,000
Savannah River, SC.............................
99-D-141-02 Waste Solidification Building, 5,125 5,125
Savannah River, SC.............................
Total, Construction............................... 201,125 201,125
Total, U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition... 311,125 311,125
Russian surplus fillile materials disposition
Total, Fissile materials disposition.................. 311,125 311,125
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs........ 1,452,247 10,000 1,462,247
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 102,909 102,909
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 1,555,156 10,000 1,565,156
Naval Reactors
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure............ 412,380 10,000 422,380
Naval reactors development.............................. 425,700 425,700
Ohio replacement reactor systems development............ 156,100 156,100
S8G Prototype refueling................................. 126,400 126,400
Program direction....................................... 46,600 46,600
Construction:
15-D-904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3............. 400 400
15-D-903 KL Fire System Upgrade....................... 600 600
15-D-902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility.......... 1,500 1,500
15-D-901 KS Central office building and prototype 24,000 24,000
staff facility.......................................
14-D-901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, 141,100 141,100
NRF..................................................
13-D-905 Remote-handled low-level waste facility, INL. 14,420 14,420
13-D-904 KS Radiological work and storage building, 20,100 20,100
KSO..................................................
10-D-903, Security upgrades, KAPL..................... 7,400 7,400
08-D-190 Expended Core Facility M-290 receiving/ 400 400
discharge station, Naval Reactor Facility, ID........
Total, Construction..................................... 209,920 209,920
Total, Naval Reactors..................................... 1,377,100 10,000 1,387,100
Federal Salaries And Expenses
Program direction....................................... 410,842 -24,000 386,842
Total, Office Of The Administrator........................ 410,842 -24,000 386,842
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Closure sites:
Closure sites administration.......................... 4,889 4,889
Hanford site:
River corridor and other cleanup operations........... 332,788 332,788
Central plateau remediation:
Central plateau remediation......................... 474,292 474,292
Construction:
15-D-401 Containerized sludge (Rl-0012)............. 26,290 26,290
Total, Central plateau remediation.................... 500,582 500,582
Richland community and regulatory support............. 14,701 14,701
Total, Hanford site..................................... 848,071 848,071
Idaho National Laboratory:
Idaho cleanup and waste disposition................... 364,293 364,293
Idaho community and regulatory support................ 2,910 2,910
Total, Idaho National Laboratory........................ 367,203 367,203
NNSA sites
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory................ 1,366 1,366
Nevada................................................ 64,851 64,851
Sandia National Laboratories.......................... 2,801 2,801
Los Alamos National Laboratory........................ 196,017 196,017
Construction:
15-D-406 Hexavalent chromium D & D (Vl-Lanl-0030)... 28,600 28,600
Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.................. 293,635 293,635
Oak Ridge Reservation:
OR Nuclear facility D & D
OR Nuclear facility D & D........................... 73,155 73,155
Construction:
14-D-403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility... 9,400 9,400
Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D...................... 82,555 82,555
U233 Disposition Program.............................. 41,626 41,626
OR cleanup and disposition:
OR cleanup and disposition.......................... 71,137 71,137
Construction:
15-D-405--Sludge Buildout......................... 4,200 4,200
Total, OR cleanup and disposition..................... 75,337 75,337
OR reservation community and regulatory support......... 4,365 4,365
Solid waste stabilization and disposition, Oak Ridge 3,000 3,000
technology development...............................
Total, Oak Ridge Reservation............................ 206,883 206,883
Office of River Protection:
Waste treatment and immobilization plant
01-D-416 A-D/ORP-0060 / Major construction.......... 575,000 575,000
01-D-16E Pretreatment facility...................... 115,000 115,000
Total, Waste treatment and immobilization plant....... 690,000 690,000
Tank farm activities
Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition. 522,000 522,000
Construction:
15-D-409 Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System, 23,000 23,000
Hanford..........................................
Total, Tank farm activities........................... 545,000 545,000
Total, Office of River protection....................... 1,235,000 1,235,000
Savannah River sites:
Savannah River risk management operations............. 416,276 416,276
SR community and regulatory support................... 11,013 11,013
Radioactive liquid tank waste:
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 553,175 553,175
disposition........................................
Construction:
15-D-402--Saltstone Disposal Unit #6.............. 34,642 34,642
05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah 135,000 135,000
River............................................
Total, Construction................................. 169,642 169,642
Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste.................. 722,817 722,817
Total, Savannah River site.............................. 1,150,106 1,150,106
Waste isolation pilot plant............................. 216,020 216,020
Program direction....................................... 280,784 280,784
Program support......................................... 14,979 14,979
Safeguards and Security:
Oak Ridge Reservation................................. 16,382 16,382
Paducah............................................... 7,297 7,297
Portsmouth............................................ 8,492 8,492
Richland/Hanford Site................................. 63,668 63,668
Savannah River Site................................... 132,196 132,196
Waste Isolation Pilot Project......................... 4,455 4,455
West Valley........................................... 1,471 1,471
Technology development.................................. 13,007 6,000 19,007
Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup................... 4,864,538 6,000 4,870,538
Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution................ 463,000 -463,000 0
Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup...................... 5,327,538 -457,000 4,870,538
Other Defense Activities
Specialized security activities......................... 202,152 5,300 207,452
Environment, health, safety and security
Environment, health, safety and security.............. 118,763 118,763
Program direction..................................... 62,235 62,235
Total, Environment, Health, safety and security......... 180,998 180,998
Independent enterprise assessments
Independent enterprise assessments.................... 24,068 24,068
Program direction..................................... 49,466 49,466
Total, Independent enterprise assessments............... 73,534 73,534
Office of Legacy Management
Legacy management..................................... 158,639 158,639
Program direction..................................... 13,341 13,341
Total, Office of Legacy Management...................... 171,980 171,980
Defense-related activities
Defense related administrative support
Chief financial officer............................... 46,877 46,877
Chief information officer............................. 71,959 71,959
Total, Defense related administrative support........... 118,836 118,836
Office of hearings and appeals.......................... 5,500 5,500
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................ 753,000 5,300 758,300
Total, Other Defense Activities........................... 753,000 5,300 758,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
The Department of Defense requested legislation, in
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by
the correspondence set out below:
April 1, 2014.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find a draft of proposed
legislation, titled the ``National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015'', that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the second session of the 113th Congress.
The purpose of each provision in the proposed bill is
stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis.
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth King.
Enclosure: As Stated
------
May 5, 2014.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the second session of the 113th Congress. The
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015''.
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth L. King.
Enclosure: As Stated
------
COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
House of Representatives, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. McKeon: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 4435, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. This legislation
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. However, in order
to expedite floor consideration of this important legislation,
the committee waives consideration of the bill.
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology takes this
action only with the understanding that the committee's
jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are
in no way diminished or altered.
The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment
to any conference on this legislation and requests your support
if such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your
including this letter in the Congressional Record during
consideration of H.R. 4435 on the House Floor. Thank you for
your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Lamar Smith,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015. I agree that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that
by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further,
this exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 4435, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. This legislation
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Natural Resources, including:
Sec. 602. No fiscal year 2015 increase in basic pay for
general and flag officers
Sec. 611. One-year extension of certain expiring bonus and
special pay authorities
Sec. 2841. Land conveyance, Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial,
La Jolla, California
Sec. 2861, Memorial to the victims of the shooting attack
at the Washington Navy Yard
Sec. 2864, Designation of Distinguished Flying Cross
National Memorial in Riverside, California
Sec. 2865, Renaming site of Dayton Aviation Heritage
National Historical Park, Ohio
Sec. 2866, Manhattan Project National Historical Park
Title 29, Subtitle A--Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada
Sec. 2911, Redesignation of Johnson Valley Off-Highway
Vehicle Recreation Area, California
Sec. 2921, Elimination of termination date for public land
withdrawals and reservations under Military Lands Withdrawal
Act of 1999
Title 29, Subtitle D--Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake,
California
Title 29, Subtitle D--White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico
Sec. xxx, National security considerations for inclusion of
federal property on National Register of Historic Places or
designation as National Historic Landmark under the National
Historic Preservation Act
To expedite floor consideration of this important
legislation, and because of the extensive cooperation shown by
you and your staff, the Committee will forego seeking a
sequential referral of the bill. The Natural Resources
Committee takes this action only with the understanding that
the Committee's jurisdictional interests over this and similar
legislation are in no way diminished or altered.
The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would
appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 4435 on the House Floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Doc Hastings,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015. I agree that the Committee on Natural Resources has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Natural Resources is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 4435, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. This legislation
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, however in order to expedite
floor consideration of this important legislation, the
Committee waives consideration of the bill.
The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs takes this action
only with the understanding that the committee's jurisdictional
interests over this and similar legislation are in no way
diminished or altered.
The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would
appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 4435 on the House Floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
With warm personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
Jeff Miller,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Jeff Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015. I agree that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 4435, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which contains
substantial matter that falls within the Rule X legislative
jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I appreciate the
cooperation that allowed us to work out mutually agreeable text
on numerous matters prior to your markup.
Based on that cooperation and our associated
understandings, the Foreign Affairs Committee will not seek a
sequential referral or object to floor consideration of the
bill text approved at your Committee markup. However, this
decision in no way diminishes or alters the jurisdictional
interests of the Foreign Affairs Committee in this bill, any
subsequent amendments, or similar legislation. I request your
support for the appointment of House Foreign Affairs conferees
during any House-Senate conference on this legislation.
Finally, I respectfully request that you include this
letter and your response in your committee report on the bill
and in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R.
4435 on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Edward R. Royce,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Edward R. Royce,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015. I agree that the Foreign Affairs Committee has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Foreign Affairs Committee is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I write concerning H.R. 4435, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as
amended. There are certain provisions in the legislation that
fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor
consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill.
This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding
that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice the
Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or to
any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters
contained in the bill or similar legislation that fall within
the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I request you urge the
Speaker to name members of the Committee to any conference
committee named to consider such provisions.
Please place a copy of this letter and your response
acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the committee
report on H.R. 4435 and into the Congressional Record during
consideration of the measure on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Bill Shuster,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Bill Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015. I agree that the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that
by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on the Judiciary in
matters being considered in H.R. 4435, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.
Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4435 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do
not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course,
is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this
legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral
waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the
Judiciary Committee, and that a copy of this letter and your
response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be
included in the Committee Report and as part of the
Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the
House.
The Judiciary Committee also asks that you support our
request to be conferees on the provisions over which we have
jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015. I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on the Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the bill
H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015. There are certain provisions in the legislation
which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I
am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential
referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving
consideration of the bill the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform does not waive any future jurisdictional
claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall
within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the
Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference
committee which is named to consider such provisions.
Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.
4435 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative
spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and
others between our respective committees.
Sincerely,
Darrell Issa,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Darrell Issa,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015. I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in
this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further,
this exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives, Committee on Education
and the Workforce,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual
understanding with respect to H.R. 4435, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. Thank you for
consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce
with regard to H.R. 4435 on those matters within the
committee's jurisdiction.
In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of
H.R. 4435, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will
forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so only
with the understanding this procedural route will not be
construed to prejudice my committee's jurisdictional interest
and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation
and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of
matters of jurisdictional interest to my committee in the
future.
I respectfully request your support for the appointment of
outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the
Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a
conference with the Senate. I also request you include our
exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee Report on
H.R. 4435 and in the Congressional Record during consideration
of this bill on the House floor. Thank you for your attention
to these matters.
Sincerely,
John Kline,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. John Kline,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015. I agree that the Committee on Education and the Workforce
has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this
exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on
the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I write concerning H.R. 4435,
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.
While the bill was referred to your Committee exclusively,
there are several provisions that fall within the Rule X
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. However,
so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for
consideration, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will not
request a sequential referral on the bill.
This is done with our mutual understanding that the
Committee on Energy and Commerce is not waiving any of its
jurisdiction, will not be prejudiced with respect to the
appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on
H.R. 4435 or similar legislation, and will be consulted and
involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward. The
Committee on Energy and Commerce also reserves the right to
seek the appointment of conferees to any House-Senate
conference involving this or similar legislation, and requests
your support for such a request.
Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter,
confirming this understanding, and ask that a copy of our
exchange of letters on this matter be included in the
Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 4435 on the
House floor.
Sincerely,
Fred Upton,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015. I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has
valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is
not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters
will be included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives, Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In recognition of the importance of
expediting the passage of H.R. 4435, the ``Fiscal Year 2015
National Defense Authorization Bill,'' the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence hereby waives further consideration
of the bill. The Committee has jurisdictional interests in H.R.
4435, including intelligence and intelligence-related
authorizations and provisions contained in the bill.
The Committee takes this action only with the understanding
that this procedural route should not be construed to prejudice
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's
jurisdictional interest over this bill or any similar bill and
will not be considered as precedent for consideration of
matters of jurisdictional interest to the Committee in the
future, including in connection with any subsequent
consideration of the bill by the House. In addition, the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will seek conferees
on any provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this
legislation.
Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our
exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional Record
during the House debate on H.R. 4435. I appreciate the
constructive work between our committees on this matter and
thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mike Rogers,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Mike Rogers,
Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015. I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that
by foregoing a sequential referral, the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: Thank you for the opportunity to
review the relevant provisions of the text of H.R. 4435, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. The
Agriculture Committee has a valid claim to jurisdiction over
H.R. 4435.
I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this
legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and,
accordingly, I agree to discharge H.R. 4435 from further
consideration by the Committee on Agriculture. I do so with the
understanding that by discharging the bill, the Committee on
Agriculture does not waive any future jurisdictional claim on
this or similar matters. Further, the Committee on Agriculture
reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees, if it
should become necessary.
I ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of letters
into both the Congressional Record and the Committee Report
during consideration of this measure on the House floor.
Thank you for your courtesy in this matter, and I look
forward to continued cooperation between our respective
committees.
Sincerely,
Frank D. Lucas,
Chairman.
------ --
------------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015. I agree that the Agriculture Committee has a valid
jurisdictional claim to a provision in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Agriculture Committee is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------ --
------------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the
bill H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. There are certain
provisions in the legislation which fall within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Small Business pursuant to
Rule X(q) of the House of Representatives.
In the interest of permitting the Committee on Armed
Services to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of
this important bill, I am willing to waive the right of the
Committee on Small Business to sequential referral. I do so
with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the
bill, the Committee on Small Business does not waive any future
jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the
bill which fall within its Rule X(q) jurisdiction, including
future bills that the Committee on Armed Services will
consider. I request that you urge the Speaker to appoint
members of this Committee to any conference committee which is
named to consider such provisions.
Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.
4435 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative
spirit in which you have worked regarding this issue and others
between our respective committees.
Sincerely,
Sam Graves,
Chairman.
------ --
------------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Sam Graves,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015. I agree that the Committee on Small Business has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Small Business is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------ --
------------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. McKeon: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 4435,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.
This legislation contains a provision requiring a strategy to
prioritize U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific region that is
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
In order to expedite floor consideration of this important
legislation, the Committee will waive consideration of the
bill. The Committee takes this action only with the
understanding that the Committee's jurisdictional interests
over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or
altered.
The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would
appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 4435 on the House Floor.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Dave Camp,
Chairman.
------ --
------------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015. I agree that the Committee on Ways and Means has a valid
jurisdictional claim to a provision in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Ways and Means is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------ --
------------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to you regarding H.R. 4435,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2015.
There are certain provisions of this legislation that fall
within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland
Security.
In the interest of permitting the Committee on Armed
Services to proceed expeditiously to the House floor, I will
not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 4435. However, I do so
only with the mutual understanding that the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Homeland Security over matters contained in this
or similar legislation is in no way diminished or altered. I
further request that you urge the Speaker to name Members of
this Committee to any conference committee that is named to
consider such provisions.
Finally, I request you include this letter and your
response into the committee report on H.R. 4435 and into the
Congressional Record. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman.
------ --
------------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2014.
Hon. Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015. I am most appreciative of your support and interest in
this important legislation. Further, this exchange of letters
will be included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
FISCAL DATA
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain
annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2015
and each of the following 5 fiscal years. The results of such
efforts are reflected in the committee cost estimate, which is
included in this report pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House
of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
May 12, 2014.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending effects
of H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as ordered reported by
the House Committee on Armed Services on May 8, 2014. CBO's
complete cost estimate for H.R. 4435, including discretionary
costs, will be provided shortly.
Based on legislative language for H.R. 4435, which was
provided to CBO on May 9, 2014, CBO estimates that enacting
this bill would decrease net direct spending by $1 million in
2015, but increase such spending by $1 million over the 2015-
2024 period (see attached table). Because the bill would affect
direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
A provision to authorize special immigrant visas for
certain Afghan allies would increase direct spending by $70
million over that 10-year period. Those costs would be offset
by a provision that would increase, by $70 million, receipts
from sales of material from the National Defense Stockpile. The
bill also would require the Secretary of Defense to award the
Purple Heart to certain service members who were killed or
wounded in attacks in the United States that were motivated or
inspired by foreign terrorist organizations. Enacting that
provision would increase military retirement payments to some
of those awardees by a total of about $1 million over the 2015-
2024 period.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is David Newman,
who can be reached at 226-2840.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director.
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF THE IMPACT OF H.R. 4435, THE HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015, ON DIRECT
SPENDING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2015-2019 2015-2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Immigrant Visas for Afghan Allies
Estimated Budget Authority.................... 1 10 9 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 35 70
Estimated Outlays............................. 1 10 9 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 35 70
National Defense Stockpile
Estimated Budget Authority.................... -2 -40 -20 -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 -70 -70
Estimated Outlays............................. -2 -40 -20 -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 -70 -70
Purple Heart Awards
Estimated Budget Authority.................... * * * * * * * * * * * 1
Estimated Outlays............................. * * * * * * * * * * * 1
Total Changes in Direct Spending
Estimated Budget Authority.................... -1 -30 -11 * 7 7 7 7 7 7 -35 1
Estimated Outlays............................. -1 -30 -11 * 7 7 7 7 7 7 -35 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344):
(1) This legislation does not provide budget authority
subject to an allocation made pursuant to section 302(b) of
Public Law 93-344;
(2) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Estimate included
in this report pursuant to clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives contains CBO's projection
of how this legislation will affect the levels of budget
authority, budget outlays, revenues, and tax expenditures for
fiscal year 2015 and for the ensuring 5 fiscal years; and
(3) The CBO Estimate does not identify any new budget
authority for assistance to state and local governments by this
measure at the time that this report was filed.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Congressional Budget
Office Estimate included in this report satisfies the
requirement for the committee to include an estimate by the
committee of the costs incurred in carrying out this bill.
ADVISORY OF EARMARKS
The committee finds that H.R. 4435, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as reported, does not
contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives.
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, this legislation results from
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and are
reflected in the body of this report.
GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the general goal and objective of
H.R. 4435 is to meet the national security needs of a nation at
war while preparing our warfighters for the threats of tomorrow
wherever and whenever they might emerge. This legislation would
meet that goal while balancing the responsibilities of fiscal
stewardship incumbent upon Congress in a time of economic
stress. Only by providing for the common defense in an
efficient, fiscally responsible manner can the nation address
our national security challenges.
The bill would sustain equipment and weapon systems vital
to the success of our service men and women while taking steps
to provide them more efficiently. As discussed elsewhere in
this report, the committee took steps to promote competition
and to provide authorities to the Department of Defense to
procure systems more cost-effectively.
The committee continues to reiterate the need for fiscal
accountability and transparency. Elsewhere in this Act, the
committee would establish an independent advisory panel on
Department of Defense audit readiness. The advisory panel would
actively monitor the Department of Defense's audit readiness
and audit work and to report to Congress on problems that need
to be resolved with the intention to shed light on the best,
most efficient path forward to meet the 2017 and 2019 deadlines
relating to auditability.
In keeping with the committee's intent to reduce
unnecessary bureaucracy, the bill would also direct the
Secretary of Defense to report on consolidating the number of
combatant commands and on combining combatant command back
office functions to achieve greater efficiencies and cost
savings. The committee would also task the Comptroller General
of the United States to assess the Department of Defense's
headquarter reduction efforts, building off the Comptroller
General's previous work conducted for the committee on
examining growth in defense headquarters.
The committee has taken significant steps in the past to
increase transparency with regard to services contracting. The
bill would extend these efforts, encouraging the Secretary of
Defense to improve data collection for services contracting and
conduct better analysis of the data to identify waste. The
committee would also require the Government Accountability
Office to report on opportunities to improve the services
contract processes.
The committee supports efforts to drive unnecessary cost
from the development, test, fielding and sustainment of weapon
systems. While much attention has been paid to the development
of systems, less has been paid on operational testing. The bill
would mandate that the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation consider the potential for increase in program cost
estimates or delays in schedule estimates in the implementation
of policies, procedures, and activities related to operational
test and evaluation.
On the battlefield, the committee would expand authorities
aimed at combating contracting with the enemy, to ensure
taxpayer dollars are not inadvertently going to opposing
forces. This measure would expand efforts that have worked well
within U.S. Central Command.
The bill also would examine and revise the Quadrennial
Defense Review requirement and the strategic planning process
in order to provide a solid basis for future defense strategic
reviews. The committee believes that proper strategic planning,
particularly when conducted regularly and within authorized
frameworks, can reduce waste while protecting the joint
warfighting capability of the Department of Defense from
arbitrary cuts.
STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES
Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this
legislation contains no Federal mandates with respect to state,
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no Federal
intergovernmental mandates.
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
Consistent with the requirements of section 5(b) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the committee finds that the
functions of the proposed advisory committee authorized in the
bill are not currently being nor could they be performed by one
or more agencies, an advisory committee already in existence or
by enlarging the mandate of an existing advisory committee.
APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The committee finds that this legislation does not relate
to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
No provision of H.R. 4435 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS
The committee estimates that H.R. 4435 requires no directed
rule makings.
COMMITTEE VOTES
In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, record votes were taken with
respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 4435. The
record of these votes is contained in the following pages.
The committee ordered H.R. 4435 to be reported to the House
with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 61-0, a quorum
being present.
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 1
h.r. 4435
On agreeing to the Shea-Porter amendment, Log 64.
Description: Requires assigning a new DOD work requirement
to military or civilian personnel, or a contractor based on
determining which workforce can perform the work in the most
appropriate and cost-efficient manner, excluding inherently
governmental, critical, or like functions.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 37 24 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 2
h.r. 4435
On agreeing to the Johnson amendment, Log 197r1.
Description: Add direct solar to the Department's list of
qualified renewable energy technologies for the purpose of
meeting the statutory 25% renewable energy target.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 11 50 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 3
h.r. 4435
On agreeing to the Conaway amendment, Log 207.
Description: Exempts DOD from Section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Wednesday: May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Barber...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carson...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Maffei...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Enyart...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ ........ ........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 33 28 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 4
h.r. 4435
On agreeing to the Conaway amendment, Log 208r1.
Description: SecDef may not enter into a contract to
refurbish or construct a biofuel facility unless authorized by
law.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Barber...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carson...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Maffei...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Enyart...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ ........ ........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 32 29 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 5
h.r. 4435
On agreeing to the Shea-Porter amendment, Log 66.
Description: Strike subtitle C of title 29, relating to
Elimination of Termination Date for Public Land Withdrawals and
Reservations Under Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 28 32 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 6
h.r. 4435
On agreeing to the Sanchez amendment, Log 232.
Description: Decreasing federal salaries and expenses
program direction by $20.0M and increasing Weapons
Dismantlement and Disposition O&M by $20.0M. Directs a briefing
on dismantling nuclear weapons.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 24 34 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 7
h.r. 4435
On agreeing to the Rigell amendment, Log 14.
Description: Establishes an eighth exemption to the
Services Contract Act of 1965 for military exchanges and
military Morale, Welfare and Recreation activities.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Barber...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carson...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Maffei...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Enyart...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ ........ ........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 28 34 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 8
h.r. 4435
On agreeing to the Hunter amendment, Log 201r1.
Description: Prohibits the SecDef and Service Secretaries
from implementing any policy that restricts certain sales in
exchanges or commissaries already in inventory as of January 1,
2014.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Enyart...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ ........ ........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 53 9 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 9
h.r. 4435
On agreeing to the Speier amendment, Log 264.
Description: Gives the authority of whether to prosecute
all serious non military offenses to the Chief Prosecutor of
the respective service. The amendment also requires that an 0-6
JAG or higher convenes the court martial.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 13 49 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 10
h.r. 4435
On agreeing to the Speier amendment, Log 125r2.
Description: This amendment gives the authority of whether
to prosecute a sexual assault-related offense to the Chief
Prosecutor of the respective service. The amendment also
requires that an O-6 JAG or higher convenes the court-martial.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 28 34 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 11
h.r. 4435
On agreeing to the Barber amendment, Log 239r2.
Description: Sets up a GAO report on Close Air Support
capability airframes in the USAF. Authorizes funding for FY15
operations, maintenance, and upgrades of A-10 fleet.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 41 20 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 12
h.r. 4435
On agreeing to the Peters amendment, Log 266.
Description: Increase funding for MQ-9 (section 4101 -
Aircraft Procurment, Air Force) by $120.0 million with an
offset from MOX Fuel Fabrication facility, Savananah River, SC.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 32 29 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 13
h.r. 4435
On agreeing to the Smith amendment, Log 88.
Description: Strike section 1032 and 1033.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 23 38 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 14
h.r. 4435
On agreeing to the Johnson amendment, Log 187r1.
Description: Requires a report on potential threats to the
personnel of United States Naval Forces Central Command and the
United States Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 29 32 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
113th Congress
roll call vote no. 15
h.r. 4435
Description: On motion by Mr. Thornberry to report the bill
H.R. 4435, as amended, favorably to the House, with a
recommendation that it do pass.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Barber...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carson...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Mr. Rigell.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Maffei...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Kilmer...... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Enyart...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Noem..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 61 0 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
The committee has taken steps to make available the
analysis of changes in existing law made by the bill, as
required by clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, and will make the analysis available as
soon as possible.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF LORETTA SANCHEZ
I would like to clarify the report language related to
Section 3121 related to Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Non-Proliferation Activities Between the United States and the
Russian Federation, which may be misleading about the status of
US-Russian cooperation. As I understand, the Secretary of
Energy has suspended certain nuclear cooperation with Russia in
the context of the on-going situation with Ukraine and the
Department of Energy is conducting an ongoing review of all
Russian-related activities. However, critical bilateral nuclear
nonproliferation activities are continuing in a number of key
areas.
I believe effective cooperation with Russia remains
necessary to effectively address the threat posed by vulnerable
fissile material, and would like to note the important progress
made toward securing and eliminating and securing highly-
enriched uranium in Russia. Nuclear nonproliferation efforts
that eliminate or secure this material reduce the risk of
nuclear terrorism and strengthen US security. I encourage the
Department of Energy to conduct a careful review of its
programs with Russia and look forward to status updates of
these programs.
Loretta Sanchez.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN GARAMENDI
I congratulate the Chairman on the passage of the committee
mark for the 53rd National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015, his final one. I deeply appreciated working with my
colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee in preparing
the committee mark that provides for a smart and strong
defense. However, there are several areas of concern that I
have for this critically important piece of legislation.
Despite these reservations, I supported the overall bill
because of the bipartisan effort of this committee to address a
number of issues vital to national security. I commend the
committee's consensus to limit the retirement of both the U-2
and KC-10 aircraft until the Department of Defense is able to
adequately report to Congress that it can maintain the same
level of capability following these divestitures. In addition,
I am pleased that the committee acknowledged and addressed the
need for increased oversight of Department of Defense funds
utilized for Afghan contract projects and security forces
funding. I applaud the committee for adopting my amendments
calling for the Department of Defense to provide briefings to
Congress on future Long Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) and the
justification on the requirement for increased plutonium pit
production capacity. Further discussion and oversight on both
of these strategic topics are especially important in this time
of fiscal austerity. Finally, I am pleased the committee shares
my concern with necessity to combat wildlife trafficking
through the strengthening of partnerships with international
partners, local communities, and NGOs in conjunction with the
existing defense and law enforcement construct.
However, this bill continues to significantly expand our
already excessive nuclear arsenal and still includes wasteful
spending on projects such as the over-budget MOX facilities at
the Savannah River site. These are funds the Department of
Energy itself has specifically said it does not need. Moreover,
the committee once again chose to avoid an informed discussion
on the scale of the current nuclear arsenal or the rationale
for the forward deployment of B-61s in Europe. This issue
remains increasingly necessary for this committee to address,
especially in this time of fiscal austerity where I believe our
resources could be better spent on more essential programs.
Finally, this bill calls for $79 billion in Overseas
Contingency Operations funding, with a substantial portion
going towards continuing military operations in Afghanistan.
However, it once again fails to address or even question
America's continued military involvement in Afghanistan. In
doing so, the committee has failed to fulfill one of its most
basic responsibilities. Congress must debate and ultimately
decide together with the President what America's role is in
Afghanistan. I am hopeful that such a debate will be allowed
when the NDAA comes to the floor of the House, where amendments
can force a vote on this critical issue.
I am confident that through the Floor amendment and
conference processes, we can find ways to address these
concerns and shape the current draft legislation into a bill
that is even more consistent with American values and that
moves us beyond both the Cold War and the wars of the last
decade. As the representative for service members at Travis Air
Force Base, in Fairfield, California, which carries out a
critical air mobility mission, and Beale Air Force Base near
Marysville, which conducts a vital Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance mission, I will continue to advocate for
investing in the technologies and military capabilities that
are effective against 21st century threats.
John Garamendi.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE RON BARBER
I strongly disagree with Tactical Air and Land
Subcommittee's item of special interest regarding the planned
retirement of the A-10 Thunderbolt by the Air Force because it
fails to consider the most important aspect of the A-10's
mission, Close Air Support (CAS).
The Air Force's proposal to divest the A-10 fleet beginning
in fiscal year 2015 will create a dangerous gap in close air
support that would negatively impact ground troops in future
combat operations.
The Warthog represents a proven aircraft of unmatched
survivability, maneuverability, and lethal armaments that is
only surpassed by the deeply-ingrained close air support
culture of its pilots. No other fixed-wing close air support
assets are as proficient as the A-10 in conducting visual
support operations below 1000 foot ceilings while being able to
effectively target the enemy.
Experience in Iraq and Afghanistan clearly demonstrates the
A-10s well-documented capability to operate in rugged
environments with low visibility while still providing
effective close air support. However, the Air Force would argue
that other platforms in the Air Force inventory can replace the
CAS eapabilities of the A-10.
The F-15, F-16, B-1, and B-52 are incredibly effective
aircraft that are important components of the Air Force
inventory, yet none of these platforms can fully replace the
capabilities and focus of the A-10 in many CAS situations. The
A-10's low altitudes, slow flying speeds, and armored hull
allow it to be more intimately involved on the battlefield than
other faster, lighter, and higher altitude flying fighters.
This closer communication and relationship with troops engaged
in combat make the A-10's close air support more accurate and
lethal, on top of the psychological effects on the enemy by a
mere fly-by of the Warthog.
While I commend the Chairman and the committee for rightly
recognizing the risk involved by this planned reduction in
fighter aircraft capacity, keeping the A-10 aircraft in Type-
1000 storage is simply divestment of the aircraft by another
name. Further, the institutional knowledge and deeply ingrained
CAS expertise would be lost and could not be quickly regained
when we are engaged in combat again.
Ron Barber.