[Senate Report 113-44]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress } { Report
1st Session } SENATE { 113-44
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 91
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
R E P O R T
[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1197]
on
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 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
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
----------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
June 20, 2013.--Ordered to be printed
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
June 20, 2013.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
JACK REED, Rhode Island JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK UDALL, Colorado SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
KRISTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii MIKE LEE, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia TED CRUZ, Texas
ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
Peter K. Levine, Staff Director
John A. Bonsell, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Purpose of the bill.............................................. 1
Committee overview....................................... 2
Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget
authority implication.................................. 6
Budgetary effects of this Act (sec. 4)................... 7
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS................. 8
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 8
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 8
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)............... 8
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 8
Multiyear procurement authority for E-2D aircraft (sec.
121)................................................... 8
CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program (sec. 122)......... 8
Repeal of requirements relating to procurement of future
surface combatants (sec. 123).......................... 11
Modification of requirements to sustain Navy airborne
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
capabilities (sec. 124)................................ 11
Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 125).......................... 12
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 12
Tactical airlift fleet of the Air Force (sec. 131)....... 12
Modification of limitations on retirement of B-52 bomber
aircraft (sec. 132).................................... 12
Repeal of requirement for maintenance of certain retired
KC-135E aircraft (sec. 133)............................ 13
Prohibition of procurement of unnecessary C-27J aircraft
by the Air Force (sec. 134)............................ 14
Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters................... 14
Multiyear procurement authority for C-130J aircraft (sec.
151)................................................... 14
Sense of Senate on the United States helicopter
industrial base (sec. 152)............................. 14
Budget Items................................................. 14
Army..................................................... 14
Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and
Surveillance System................................ 14
UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter......................... 15
Paladin Integrated Management........................ 15
XM25 counter defilade target engagement weapon system 15
Carbine.............................................. 15
5.56mm, 7.62mm, .50 caliber, and 30mm reductions..... 16
25mm reduction....................................... 16
Navy..................................................... 16
Sustaining capabilities of EP-3 and Special Projects
Aircraft........................................... 16
Close-in weapon system modifications................. 17
Afloat forward staging base.......................... 17
DDG-51............................................... 18
Air Force................................................ 18
MQ-9................................................. 18
Reaper synthetic aperture radar...................... 18
C-130 aircraft modifications......................... 18
Defense-wide............................................. 19
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle......................... 19
Items of Special Interest.................................... 20
Army air-to-ground rocket and missile programs....... 20
Army and Marine Corps initiatives to improve armored
vehicle fuel efficiency............................ 20
Close air support requirements....................... 21
Comptroller General review of the Ford-class aircraft
carrier program.................................... 21
Comptroller General review of the Littoral Combat
Ship program....................................... 22
Defense ground radar programs........................ 23
Department of the Navy strike fighter inventories.... 24
Ejection seats....................................... 24
Enhanced performance round versus special operations
science and technology round....................... 25
F-35 production rate................................. 25
F-35 technical issues................................ 26
Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance....... 26
Joint high speed vessel.............................. 27
Joint surveillance/target attack radar system
modernization...................................... 27
Joint Tactical Radio System handheld, manpack, and
small form fit competition and contracting......... 28
Long Range Strike Bomber............................. 28
Modernization of B-1 bomber.......................... 29
Modernization of the B-52 Strategic Radar System..... 29
Paladin integrated management program................ 29
Report on the results of the Army voluntary flight
demonstration...................................... 29
Ship Modernization, Operations and Sustainment Fund.. 30
Small diameter bomb.................................. 31
UH-1N replacement strategy........................... 31
UH-72 light utility helicopter....................... 32
Uninterruptable power supply......................... 32
Use of commercially available systems to support
certain Navy requirements.......................... 32
War readiness engine shortfall....................... 33
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 35
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 35
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)............... 35
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 35
Conventional Prompt Global Strike program (sec. 211)..... 35
Modification of requirements on biennial strategic plan
for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (sec.
212)................................................... 36
Extension of authority for program to award prizes for
advanced technology achievements (sec. 213)............ 36
Five-year extension of pilot program to include
technology protection features during research and
development of certain defense systems (sec. 214)...... 36
Extension of mechanisms to provide funds for defense
laboratories for research and development of
technologies for military missions (sec. 215).......... 36
Sustainment or replacement of Blue Devil Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance System (sec. 216)..... 36
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs......................... 38
Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 231)............ 38
Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 232)............ 40
Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233)....... 40
Additional missile defense radar for the protection of
the United States homeland (sec. 234).................. 41
Evaluation of options for future ballistic missile
defense sensor architectures (sec. 235)................ 41
Prohibition on the use of funds for the MEADS program
(sec. 236)............................................. 42
Subtitle D--Reports and Other Matters........................ 42
Annual Comptroller General of the United States report on
the acquisition program for the VXX Presidential
Helicopter (sec. 251).................................. 42
Budget Items................................................. 42
Army..................................................... 42
Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin project............ 42
Long endurance multi-intelligence vehicle............ 43
General Fund Enterprise Business Systems............. 43
Internet mapping..................................... 43
Navy..................................................... 43
Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development.... 43
LHA-8 design effort.................................. 44
Marine personnel carrier............................. 45
Air Force................................................ 45
Operationally Responsive Space....................... 45
Tactical data networks enterprise.................... 45
Tactical exploitation of national capabilities....... 45
Joint surveillance/target attack radar system........ 46
Air Force Applications Software Assurance Center of
Excellence............................................. 46
Defense-wide............................................. 47
National Defense Education Program................... 47
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln
Laboratory......................................... 48
Applied research for the advancement of science and
technology priorities.............................. 48
Automated software code analysis tool development.... 48
Counter terrorism, counter-insurgency, and the
exploitation of human terrain in conflict.......... 49
Combating Terrorism Technology Support............... 50
Ballistic missile defense technology programs........ 50
Rapid Fielding....................................... 52
Networked Communications Capability Program.......... 52
Defense industrial capacity innovation and
sustainment........................................ 52
CWMD Systems......................................... 53
Advanced sensor applications program................. 53
U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs.... 54
Advanced Innovative Technologies..................... 54
Defense research and development Rapid Innovation
Program focus areas................................ 55
Developmental test and evaluation.................... 56
Defense Technical Information Center................. 56
Conflict Records Research Center..................... 56
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle......................... 57
Combatant Craft Forward Looking Infrared Radar....... 57
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs... 57
Items of Special Interest.................................... 58
Army Occupant-Centric Survivability Program.............. 58
Chemical and biological defense medical countermeasures
strategy............................................... 58
Combat casualty care research............................ 59
Common kill vehicle technology program................... 60
High energy laser weapons................................ 61
Future Ground-Based Interceptor acquisition.............. 62
Hybrid Airships.......................................... 63
Implementation of Air Force Strategic Weather
Modernization Plan Recommendations..................... 64
Importance of preserving and maintaining mission critical
information technology services........................ 64
Improved turbine engine program.......................... 64
Independent assessment of Army Distributed Common Ground
System analyst tool integration........................ 65
Joint Land-Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor
(JLENS) system......................................... 66
Metrics for evaluating Commercial Solutions for
Classified............................................. 66
Military Scientists and Engineers........................ 67
Scientific and technical conferences..................... 68
Tactical power grids..................................... 69
Trusted microelectronics................................. 69
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 71
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 71
Operation and maintenance funding (sec. 301)............. 71
Subtitle B--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 71
Sustainment of critical manufacturing capabilities within
Army arsenals (sec. 311)............................... 71
Strategic policy for prepositioned materiel and equipment
(sec. 312)............................................. 71
Extension and modification of authority for airlift
transportation at Department of Defense rates for non-
Department of Defense Federal cargoes (sec. 313)....... 72
Subtitle C--Readiness........................................ 73
Modification of authorities on prioritization of funds
for equipment readiness and strategic capability (sec.
321)................................................... 73
Strategic policy for the retrograde, reconstitution, and
replacement of operating forces used to support
overseas contingency operations (sec. 322)............. 73
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 73
Strategy for improving asset visibility and in-transit
visibility (sec. 331).................................. 73
Changes to quarterly reports on personnel and unit
readiness (sec. 332)................................... 73
Revision to requirement for annual submission of
information regarding information technology capital
assets (sec. 333)...................................... 74
Modification of annual corrosion control and prevention
reporting requirements (sec. 334)...................... 74
Subtitle E--Limitations and Extension of Authority........... 74
Limitation on funding for United States Special
Operations Command National Capital Region (sec. 341).. 74
Limitation on funding for Regional Special Operations
Coordination Centers (sec. 342)........................ 75
Limitation on availability of funds for Trans Regional
Web Initiative (TRWI) (sec. 343)....................... 76
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 76
Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility
uniforms (sec. 351).................................... 76
Authorization to institute a centralized, automated mail
redirection system to improve the delivery of absentee
ballots to military personnel serving outside the
United States (sec. 352)............................... 77
Budget Items................................................. 77
Army readiness funding increases......................... 77
U.S. European Command funding decrease................... 78
Navy readiness funding increases......................... 78
Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support.............. 79
Marine Corps readiness funding increases................. 79
Air Force readiness funding increases.................... 79
Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support.............. 79
Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers......... 80
U.S. Special Operations Command--National Capital Region. 80
Department of Defense STARBASE program................... 81
Defense Security Cooperation Agency...................... 81
Funding for impact aid................................... 82
Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request.. 82
Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) funding decrease..... 83
Continuing support for Operation Observant Compass....... 83
Items of Special Interest.................................... 83
Additive manufacturing................................... 83
Advanced situational awareness training.................. 84
Air show support by the Department of Defense............ 84
Coal-to-liquid fuel technology developments.............. 84
Combatant command support agent accounting............... 85
Comptroller General of the United States review of United
States Central Command................................. 85
Consolidated guidance on equipment retrograde............ 86
Contingency basing....................................... 86
Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management...... 87
Department of Defense and Department of Energy memorandum
of understanding to enhance energy security............ 87
Energy metering.......................................... 88
Energy security assessments in the Quadrennial Defense
Review................................................. 88
Foreign exchange program for Reserve Officer Training
Corps cadets and critical military language training... 89
Full spectrum operations................................. 89
Government Accountability Office readiness analysis...... 89
Intergovernmental support agreements with state and local
governments............................................ 90
Light-weight ammunition project under the Defense
Production Act, Title III authority.................... 90
Marine Corps core depot maintenance policy............... 91
Meals ready to eat war reserve........................... 91
Mission compatibility reviews............................ 91
Open pit burning of waste in Afghanistan................. 92
Organizational clothing and equipment.................... 92
Policies and procedures in handling of hazardous material
shipments.............................................. 93
Readiness concerns under sequestration................... 93
Report by Installation Command on Kwajalein Atoll........ 94
Report on the identification of a hollow force........... 95
Review of defense headquarters and combatant command
resources.............................................. 95
Small modular reaction study............................. 96
Tungsten rhenium wire for Department of Defense
requirements........................................... 97
Unfunded requirements from the Service Chiefs............ 97
United States Africa Command............................. 97
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS......................
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 99
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)............... 99
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 99
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............ 99
End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of
the reserves (sec. 412)................................ 100
End strengths for military technicians (dual status)
(sec. 413)............................................. 100
Fiscal year 2014 limitation on number of non-dual status
technicians (sec. 414)................................. 100
Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support (sec. 415)......... 101
Subtitle C--Authorizations of Appropriations................. 101
Military personnel (sec. 421)............................ 101
Budget Item.................................................. 101
Military personnel funding changes....................... 101
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY...............................
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally............... 103
Service credit for cyberspace experience or advanced
education upon original appointment as a commissioned
officer (sec. 501)..................................... 103
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 103
Information to be provided to boards considering officers
for selective early removal from the reserve active-
status list (sec. 506)................................. 103
Removal of restrictions on the transfer of officers
between the active and inactive National Guard (sec.
507)................................................... 103
Limitation on certain cancellations of deployment of
reserve component units within 180 days of scheduled
date of deployment (sec. 508).......................... 104
National Guard Youth Challenge Program (sec. 509)........ 104
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 105
Expansion and enhancement of authorities relating to
protected communications of members of the Armed Forces
and prohibited retaliatory actions (sec. 511).......... 105
Enhancement of protection of rights of conscience of
members of the Armed Forces and chaplains of such
members (sec. 512)..................................... 105
Department of Defense Inspector General reports on
compliance with requirements for the protection of
rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and
their chaplains (sec. 513)............................. 105
Subtitle D--Member Education and Training.................... 105
Authority for joint professional military education Phase
II instruction and credit to be offered and awarded
through senior-level course of School of Advanced
Military Studies of the United States Army Command and
General Staff College (sec. 521)....................... 105
Authority for Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences to support undergraduate and other medical
education and training programs for military medical
personnel (sec. 522)................................... 105
Expansion of eligibility for associate degree programs
under the Community College of the Air Force (sec. 523) 106
Additional requirements for approval of educational
programs for purposes of certain educational assistance
under laws administered by the Secretary of Defense
(sec. 524)............................................. 106
Enhancement of mechanisms to correlate skills and
training for military occupational specialties with
skills and training required for civilian
certifications and licenses (sec. 525)................. 106
Coverage of military occupational specialties relating to
military information technology under pilot program on
receipt of civilian credentials for skills required for
military occupational specialties (sec. 526)........... 106
Sense of Senate on the Troops-to-Teachers Program (sec.
527)................................................... 107
Conforming amendment relating to renaming of North
Georgia College and State University as University of
North Georgia (sec. 528)............................... 107
Subtitle E--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and
Military Justice Matters................................... 107
PART I--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response........... 107
Prohibition on service in the Armed Forces by
individuals who have been convicted of certain
sexual offenses (sec. 531)......................... 107
Temporary administrative reassignment or removal of a
member of the Armed Forces on active duty who is
accused of committing a sexual assault or related
offense (sec. 532)................................. 107
Issuance of regulations applicable to the Coast Guard
regarding consideration of request for permanent
change of station or unit transfer by victim of
sexual assault (sec. 533).......................... 107
Inclusion and command review of information on
sexual-related offenses in personnel service
records of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 534).. 108
Enhanced responsibilities of Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Office for Department of
Defense sexual assault prevention and response
program (sec. 535)................................. 108
Comprehensive review of adequacy of training for
members of the Armed Forces on sexual assault
prevention and response (sec. 536)................. 109
Availability of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators
for members of the National Guard and the Reserves
(sec. 537)......................................... 109
Retention of certain forms in connection with
Restricted Reports and Unrestricted Reports on
sexual assault involving members of the armed
forces (sec. 538).................................. 109
Special Victims' Counsel for victims of sexual
assault committed by members of the armed forces
(sec. 539)......................................... 110
Sense of Congress on commanding officer
responsibility for command climate free of
retaliation (sec. 540)............................. 110
Commanding officer action on reports on sexual
offenses involving members of the Armed Forces
(sec. 541)......................................... 110
Department of Defense Inspector General investigation
of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions
taken in response to making protected
communications regarding sexual assault (sec. 542). 110
Advancement of submittal deadline for report of
independent panel on assessment of military
response systems to sexual assault (sec. 543)...... 110
Assessment of clemency in the military justice system
and of database of alleged offenders of sexual
assault as additional duties of independent panel
on review and assessment of systems to respond to
sexual assault cases (sec. 544).................... 111
Assessment of provisions and proposed provisions of
law on sexual assault prevention and response as
additional duties of independent panels for review
and assessment of Uniform Code of Military Justice
and judicial proceedings of sexual assault cases
(sec. 545)......................................... 111
Assessment of compensation and restitution of victims
of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice as additional duty of independent panel on
review and assessment of judicial proceedings of
sexual assault cases (sec. 546).................... 112
PART II--Related Military Justice Matters................
Elimination of five-year statute of limitations on
trial by court-martial for additional offenses
involving sex-related crimes (sec. 551)............ 112
Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain
sexual offenses to trial by court-martial (sec.
552)............................................... 112
Defense counsel interview of complaining witnesses in
presence of trial counsel or outside counsel (sec.
553)............................................... 112
Mandatory discharge or dismissal for certain sex-
related offenses under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice and trial of such offenses by general
courts-martial (sec. 554).......................... 113
Limitation on authority of convening authority to
modify findings of a court-martial (sec. 555)...... 113
Participation by complaining witnesses in clemency
phase of courts-martial process (sec. 556)......... 113
Secretary of Defense report on modifications to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice to prohibit sexual
acts and contacts between military instructors and
trainees (sec. 557)................................ 114
Sense of Senate on disposition of charges involving
certain sexual misconduct offenses under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice through courts-
martial (sec. 558)................................. 114
Sense of Senate on the discharge in lieu of court-
martial of members of the Armed Forces who commit
sexual-related offenses (sec. 559)................. 114
PART III--Other Military Justice and Legal Matters.......
Modification of eligibility for appointment as Judge
on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces (sec. 561).................................. 114
Repeal of the offense of consensual sodomy under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 562)........ 115
Prohibition of retaliation against members of the
Armed Forces for reporting a criminal offense (sec.
563)............................................... 115
Extension of crime victims' rights to victims of
offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(sec. 564)......................................... 115
Modification of Manual for Courts-Martial to
eliminate factor relating to character and military
service of the accused in rule on initial
disposition of offenses (sec. 565)................. 115
Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family
Readiness Matters.......................................... 115
Continuation of authority to assist local educational
agencies that benefit dependents of members of the
Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees (sec. 571)................................... 115
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec.
572)................................................... 116
Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards........................... 116
Matters relating to Medals of Honor and other medals of
high precedence for members of the Armed Forces (sec.
581)................................................... 116
Recodification and revision of Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Coast Guard Medal of Honor Roll (sec. 582)............. 116
Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to
Robert F. Keiser for valor during the Korean War (sec.
583)................................................... 116
Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to
Sergeant First Class Patrick N. Watkins, Jr., for acts
of valor during the Vietnam War (sec. 584)............. 116
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 117
Additional requirements for accounting for members of the
Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees listed as missing (sec. 591)................. 117
Expansion of privileged information authorities to
debriefing reports of certain recovered persons who
were never placed in a missing status (sec. 592)....... 117
Items of Special Interest.................................... 117
Availability of Assaultive Offender's Group Treatment
program................................................ 117
Combat injured military technician (dual status)
retention under Wounded Warrior Act authority.......... 117
Command knowledge of civilian convictions of service
members for sexual assault............................. 118
Comprehensive Review of Department of Defense
coordination and incorporation of civilian law
enforcement best practices in sexual assault prevention
and response........................................... 119
Department of Defense child development center personnel. 119
Department of Defense reports on sexual assault.......... 119
General and flag officer billets......................... 120
Medical management of sexual assault cases............... 120
Military dependent suicides.............................. 121
Prohibition of sale of sexually explicit material........ 121
Report to Congress on the implementation of the
recommendations made by the Military Leadership
Diversity Commission................................... 121
Report on whereabouts of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl..... 122
Retention, career progression, and promotion
opportunities for female members of the Armed Forces... 122
Sexual assault first responder training.................. 123
Suicide prevention screening............................. 123
U.S. Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force
and Families Initiatives............................... 124
Veteran unemployment..................................... 125
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS..............
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................
Fiscal year 2014 increase in military basic pay (sec.
601)................................................... 127
Repeal of authority relating to commencement of basic pay
for members of the National Guard called into Federal
service for less than 30 days (sec. 602)............... 127
Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in
rates of basic allowance for housing under certain
circumstances (sec. 603)............................... 127
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 127
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611).............. 127
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612)... 127
One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities
for nuclear officers (sec. 613)........................ 128
One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37
consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus
authorities (sec. 614)................................. 128
One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of
other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)..... 128
Correction of citation for extension of reimbursement
authority for travel expenses for inactive-duty
training outside of normal commuting distance and
additional one-year extension (sec. 616)............... 128
Expansion to all reserve components of stipend for
registered nurses in critical specialties under health
professions stipend program (sec. 617)................. 129
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............
Technical and standardizing amendments to Department of
Defense travel and transportation authorities in
connection with reform of such authorities (sec. 631).. 129
Subtitle D--Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits... 129
Clarification of prevention of retired pay in version in
the case of members whose retired pay is computed using
high-three (sec. 641).................................. 129
Effect on division of retired pay of election to receive
combat-related special compensation after previous
election to receive concurrent retirement and
disability compensation (sec. 642)..................... 129
Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for special needs trusts
established for the benefit of dependent children
incapable of self-support (sec. 643)................... 129
Periodic notice to members of the Ready Reserve on early
retirement credit earned for significant periods of
active Federal status or active duty (sec. 644)........ 130
Preservation of retiree dependent status for certain
dependents upon death or permanent incapacitation of
the retired member on whom dependent status is based
(sec. 645)............................................. 130
Subtitle E--Military Lending Matters......................... 130
Enhanced role for the Department of Justice under the
Military Lending Act (sec. 661)........................ 130
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 130
Authority to provide certain expenses for care and
disposition of human remains that were retained by the
Department of Defense for forensic pathology
investigation (sec. 671)............................... 130
Extension of ongoing pilot programs under temporary Army
incentive to provide additional recruitment incentives
(sec. 672)............................................. 130
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 131
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration....................... 131
Pilot program on increased collection of third-party
reimbursements for health care services provided in
military medical treatment facilities (sec. 711)....... 131
Sense of Senate on implementation of integrated
electronic health records for the Department of Defense
and the Department of Veterans Affairs (sec. 712)...... 131
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 131
Report on provision of advanced prosthetics and orthotics
to members of the Armed Forces and veterans (sec. 721). 131
Items of Special Interest.................................... 132
Autism spectrum disorder services........................ 132
Education and training of the acquisition workforce of
the TRICARE Management Activity........................ 132
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for mild traumatic brain injury 132
Mental health counselors for service members, veterans,
and their families..................................... 133
Ribonucleic acid research................................ 133
TRICARE appeals process.................................. 133
TRICARE emergency department utilization................. 134
Use of simulation technology in medical training......... 135
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS................................................ 137
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 137
Restatement and revision of requirements applicable to
multiyear defense acquisitions to be specifically
authorized by law (sec. 801)........................... 137
Extension of authority to acquire products and services
produced in countries along a major route of supply to
Afghanistan (sec. 802)................................. 137
Report on program manager training and experience (sec.
803)................................................... 138
Subtitle B-Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition
Programs................................................... 138
Synchronization of cryptographic systems for major
defense acquisition programs (sec. 821)................ 138
Assessment of dedicated control system before Milestone B
approval of major defense acquisition programs
constituting a space program (sec. 822)................ 138
Additional responsibility for product support managers
for major weapon systems (sec. 823).................... 138
Comptroller General of the United States review of
Department of Defense processes for the acquisition of
weapons systems (sec. 824)............................. 139
Subtitle C--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations................................ 139
Maximum amount of allowable costs of compensation of
contractor employees (sec. 841)........................ 139
Implementation by Department of Defense of certain
recommendations of the Comptroller General of the
United States on oversight of pensions offered by
Department contractors (sec. 842)...................... 140
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 140
Extension of prohibition on contracting with the enemy in
the United States Central Command theater of operations
(sec. 861)............................................. 140
Prohibition on contracting with the enemy (sec. 862)..... 140
Report on the elimination of improper payments (sec. 863) 141
Items of Special Interest.................................... 141
Application of the Berry Amendment to the acquisition of
athletic footwear in the Department of Defense......... 141
Clarification pertaining to small business contracting
requiring a written justification and approval......... 141
Competition in the development and procurement of
training systems....................................... 142
Comptroller General of the United States report on best
value competitive source selection techniques.......... 142
Comptroller General of the United States report on in-
line management process for the acquisition process.... 143
Comptroller General report on process and procedures for
identifying duplicative and/or inefficient major
development and procurement programs................... 143
Report on the configuration steering boards.............. 143
Required goals for future Financial Improvement and Audit
Readiness reports...................................... 144
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 147
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management................. 147
Under Secretary of Defense for Management (sec. 901)..... 147
Supervision of Command Acquisition Executive of the
United States Special Operations Command by the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics (sec. 902)................................... 148
Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command,
Control, and Communications System (sec. 903).......... 149
Transfer of administration of Ocean Research Advisory
Panel from Department of the Navy to National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (sec. 904).............. 149
Streamlining of Department of Defense management
headquarters (sec. 905)................................ 149
Update of statutory statement of functions of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff relating to
doctrine, training, and education (sec. 906)........... 150
Modification of reference to major Department of Defense
headquarters activities instruction (sec. 907)......... 150
Subtitle B--Space Activities................................. 150
Limitation on use of funds for Space Protection Program
(sec. 921)............................................. 150
Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Matters..................... 150
Personnel security (sec. 931)............................ 150
Reports on clandestine human intelligence collection
(sec. 932)............................................. 152
Navy Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance aircraft (sec. 933) 152
Plan for transfer of Air Force C-12 Liberty Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance aircraft (sec. 934)... 153
Subtitle D--Cyberspace-Related Matters....................... 154
Authorities, capabilities, and oversight of United States
Cyber Command (sec. 941)............................... 154
Joint software assurance center for the Department of
Defense (sec. 942)..................................... 155
Supervision of the acquisition of cloud computing
capabilities for intelligence analysis (sec. 943)...... 156
Cyber vulnerabilities of Department of Defense weapons
systems and tactical communications systems (sec. 944). 157
Strategy on use of the reserve components of the Armed
Forces to support Department of Defense cyber missions
(sec. 945)............................................. 158
Control of the proliferation of cyber weapons (sec. 946). 159
Integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace
(sec. 947)............................................. 160
Centers of Academic Excellence for Information Assurance
matters (sec. 948)..................................... 160
Items of Special Interest.................................... 162
Assessment of multi-year procurement of GPS III
satellites............................................. 162
Assessment of the costs, risks, and benefits of storage
on produced satellites................................. 162
Core staff of the National Reconnaissance Office......... 162
Estimated cost to relocate spectrum...................... 163
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle........................ 163
Joint Space Operations Center Mission System Program..... 164
Mainframe computer security.............................. 164
Modernization of Defense Support Program Mobile Ground
System................................................. 165
Payload processing services.............................. 165
Report on disaggregation and payload hosting............. 165
Report on Family of Advanced Beyond Line of Sight Command
Terminals for airborne platforms....................... 165
Report on North Korea's ability to develop a functional
nuclear-armed long-range ballistic missile............. 166
Report on space situational awareness.................... 167
Satellite communications strategy........................ 167
Satellite control system modernization plan.............. 168
Space Based Infrared Satellite, GEO 5 and 6.............. 168
Strategic solid rocket motor industrial base............. 168
Trusted agent for spectrum............................... 168
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 171
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 171
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)................... 171
Department of Defense Readiness Restoration Fund (sec.
1002).................................................. 171
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 171
Extension of authority to support the unified counter-
drug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec.
1011).................................................. 171
Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide
support to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-
terrorism activities (sec. 1012)....................... 172
Extension and expansion of authority to provide
additional support for counter-drug activities of
certain foreign governments (sec. 1013)................ 172
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 172
Modification of requirements for annual long-range plan
for the construction of naval vessels (sec. 1021)...... 172
Report on naval vessels and the Force Structure
Assessment (sec. 1022)................................. 172
Repeal of policy relating to propulsion systems of any
new class of major combatant vessels of the strike
forces of the United States Navy (sec. 1023)........... 174
Clarification of sole ownership resulting from ship
donations at no cost to the Navy (sec. 1024)........... 175
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism................................. 175
Transfers to foreign countries of individuals detained at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec.
1031).................................................. 175
Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to
the United States for emergency or critical medical
treatment (sec. 1032).................................. 176
Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba (sec. 1033).................................. 176
Clarification of procedures for use of alternate members
on military commissions (sec. 1034).................... 177
Subtitle E--Nuclear Forces................................... 177
Modification of responsibilities and reporting
requirements of Nuclear Weapons Council (sec. 1041).... 177
Modification of deadline for report on plan for nuclear
weapons stockpile and nuclear weapons complex (sec.
1042).................................................. 177
Cost estimates and comparisons relating to interoperable
warhead (sec. 1043).................................... 178
Sense of Congress on ensuring the modernization of United
States nuclear forces (sec. 1044)...................... 178
Readiness and flexibility of intercontinental ballistic
missile force (sec. 1045).............................. 178
Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 178
National security spectrum strategy (sec. 1051).......... 178
Department of Defense representation in dispute
resolution regarding surrender of Department of Defense
bands of electromagnetic frequencies (sec. 1052)....... 178
Sense of Senate on parental rights of members of the
Armed Forces in child custody determinations (sec.
1053).................................................. 179
Subtitle G--Studies and Reports.............................. 179
Repeal and modification of reporting requirements (sec.
1061).................................................. 179
Report on plans for the disposition of the Mine Resistant
Ambush Protected vehicle fleet (sec. 1062)............. 179
Report on foreign language support contracts for the
Department of Defense (sec. 1063)...................... 179
Civil Air Patrol (sec. 1064)............................. 180
Eagle Vision system (sec. 1065).......................... 181
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 181
Extension of the Ministry of Defense Advisor Program
(sec. 1081)............................................ 181
Items of Special Interest.................................... 182
Airborne Nuclear Command Post............................ 182
Air Force weapons storage areas.......................... 182
Army force structure and installation alignment.......... 182
Counter threat finance efforts........................... 183
Department of Defense support to U.S. diplomatic
facilities overseas.................................... 184
Fiscal priorities........................................ 185
Ground Based Strategic Deterrent......................... 186
Impact of B-61 program delay............................. 186
Reforming the security classification system............. 187
Report on reductions to the fiscal year 2014 defense
budget to meet the savings requirement established by
the Budget Control Act................................. 187
Strategic Automated Command Control System Modernization
Plan................................................... 188
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS............................. 189
Extension of voluntary reduction-in-force authority for
civilian employees of the Department of Defense (sec.
1101).................................................. 189
Extension of authority to make lump sum severance
payments to Department of Defense employees (sec. 1102) 189
Expansion of protection of employees of nonappropriated
fund instrumentalities from reprisals (sec. 1103)...... 189
Extension of enhanced appointment and compensation
authority for civilian personnel for care and treatment
of wounded and injured members of the Armed Forces
(sec. 1104)............................................ 189
Amount of educational assistance under Science,
Mathematics, and Research for Transformation Defense
Education Program (sec. 1105).......................... 190
Flexibility in employment and compensation of civilian
faculty at certain additional Department of Defense
schools (sec. 1106).................................... 190
Temporary authority for direct appointment to certain
positions at Department of Defense research and
engineering facilities (sec. 1107)..................... 190
Modernization of titles of nonappropriated fund
instrumentalities for purposes of certain civil service
laws (sec. 1108)....................................... 190
Item of Special Interest..................................... 191
Department of Defense civilian leadership programs....... 191
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS................... 193
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 193
Modification and extension of authorities relating to
program to build the capacity of foreign military
forces (sec. 1201)..................................... 193
Revisions to Global Security Contingency Fund authority
(sec. 1202)............................................ 193
Training of general purpose forces of the United States
Armed Forces with military and other security forces of
friendly foreign countries (sec. 1203)................. 194
United States counterterrorism assistance and cooperation
in North Africa (sec. 1204)............................ 194
Assistance to the Government of Jordan for border
security operations (sec. 1205)........................ 195
Authority to conduct activities to enhance the capability
of foreign countries to respond to incidents involving
weapons of mass destruction (sec. 1206)................ 195
Support of foreign forces participating in operations to
disarm the Lord's Resistance Army (sec. 1207).......... 196
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Iraq....................................................... 196
Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan
(sec. 1211)............................................ 196
Extension and modification of authority to support
operations and activities of the Office of Security
Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1212)........................ 197
One-year extension and modification of authority to use
funds for reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec.
1213).................................................. 197
One-year extension and modification of authority for
program to develop and carry out infrastructure
projects in Afghanistan (sec. 1214).................... 198
Extension of authority for reimbursement of certain
coalition nations for support provided to United States
military operations (sec. 1215)........................ 198
Extension of logistical support for coalition forces
supporting certain United States military operations
(sec. 1216)............................................ 199
Extension and improvement of the Iraqi special immigrant
visa program (sec. 1217)............................... 199
Extension and improvement of the Afghan special immigrant
visa program (sec. 1218)............................... 199
Sense of Congress on commencement of new long-term nation
building or large-scale infrastructure development
projects in Afghanistan (sec. 1219).................... 199
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 199
Two-year extension of authorization for non-conventional
assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1231)............. 199
Element on 5th generation fighter program in annual
report on military and security developments involving
the People's Republic of China (sec. 1232)............. 200
Prohibition on use of funds to enter into contracts or
agreements with Rosoboronexport (sec. 1233)............ 200
Modification of statutory references to former North
Atlantic Treaty Organization support organizations and
related agreements (sec. 1234)......................... 200
Technical correction relating to funding for NATO Special
Operations Headquarters (sec. 1235).................... 201
Strategy to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and related materials in the Middle East
and North Africa region (sec. 1236).................... 201
Items of Special Interest.................................... 201
Inter-American Defense College........................... 201
Military-to-military cooperation with Somalia............ 202
Status of United States military engagements with Burma.. 203
Taiwan air power assessment.............................. 204
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION......................... 205
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs
and funds (sec. 1301).................................. 205
Funding allocations (sec. 1302).......................... 205
Extension of authority for utilization of contributions
to the Cooperative Threat Reduction program (sec. 1303) 205
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 207
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 207
Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)........................ 207
National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)................ 207
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec.
1403).................................................. 207
Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defense-
wide (sec. 1404)....................................... 207
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1405).................... 207
Defense Health Program (sec. 1406)....................... 207
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 207
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home (sec. 1421)............................ 207
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 (sec. 1422)...................... 208
Budget Items................................................. 208
Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan...... 208
Defense Health Program funding........................... 209
Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities............ 209
Items of Special Interest.................................... 209
Army industrial operations activity group................ 209
Concerns with working capital fund cash balances and fuel
rate pricing........................................... 210
Joint Interagency Task Force--South...................... 211
National Guard Counterdrug Program....................... 211
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS......................................... 213
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations....... 213
Purpose (sec. 1501)...................................... 213
Procurement (sec. 1502).................................. 213
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1503).. 213
Operation and maintenance (sec. 1504).................... 213
Military personnel (sec. 1505)........................... 213
Working capital funds (sec. 1506)........................ 213
National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1507)................ 213
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec.
1508).................................................. 213
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
wide (sec. 1509)....................................... 214
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1510).................... 214
Defense Health program (sec. 1511)....................... 214
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 214
Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)....... 214
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)................... 214
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 214
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1531) 214
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1532)............. 215
Extension of authority for Task Force for Business and
Stability Operations in Afghanistan (sec. 1533)........ 215
Budget Items................................................. 216
NATO Special Operations Headquarters..................... 216
BuckEye.................................................. 216
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.... 216
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund.......................... 217
Item of Special Interest..................................... 218
Counter improvised explosive device training............. 218
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 219
Summary and explanation of funding tables................ 219
Short title (sec. 2001).................................. 219
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law (sec. 2002)........................... 219
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................ 221
Summary.................................................. 221
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2101)................................... 221
Family housing (sec. 2102)............................... 221
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)........ 221
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2011 project (sec. 2104).......................... 221
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2010 project (sec. 2105).......................... 222
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2004 project (sec. 2106).......................... 222
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011
projects (sec. 2107)................................... 222
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010
projects (sec. 2108)................................... 222
Limitation on construction of cadet barracks at United
States Military Academy, New York (sec. 2109).......... 222
Items of Special Interest.................................... 223
Access Control Point Equipment Program................... 223
Comptroller General review of litigation costs incurred
by the Military Housing Privatization Initiative....... 223
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 225
Summary.................................................. 225
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2201)................................... 225
Family housing (sec. 2202)............................... 225
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 225
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........ 225
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2012 project (sec. 2205).......................... 226
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2011 project (sec. 2206).......................... 226
One-year extension of authorization of certain fiscal
year 2011 project (sec. 2207).......................... 226
Two-year extension of authorizations of certain fiscal
year 2011 project (sec. 2208).......................... 226
Item of Special Interest..................................... 226
Townsend Bombing Range land acquisition.................. 226
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION..................... 227
Summary.................................................. 227
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2301)................................... 227
Family housing (sec. 2302)............................... 228
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 228
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)... 228
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011
project (sec. 2305).................................... 228
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............... 229
Summary.................................................. 229
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations.................... 230
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2401)....................... 230
Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)...... 230
Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec.
2403).................................................. 230
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations......... 230
Authorization of appropriations, chemical
demilitarization construction, Defense-wide (sec. 2411) 230
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM........................................................ 231
Summary.................................................. 231
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2501)................................... 231
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........ 231
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 233
Summary.................................................. 233
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of
Appropriations............................................. 233
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2601)....................... 233
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2602)................................... 233
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603). 233
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2604)....................... 233
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2605)....................... 233
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and
Reserve (sec. 2606).................................... 234
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 234
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2013 project (sec. 2611).......................... 234
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011
project (sec. 2612).................................... 234
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011
project (sec. 2613).................................... 234
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES............. 235
Summary and explanation of tables........................ 235
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and
closure activities funded through Department of Defense
Base Closure Account (sec. 2701)....................... 235
Precondition for any future base realignment and closure
round (sec. 2702)...................................... 235
Report on 2005 base closure and realignment joint basing
initiative (sec. 2703)................................. 235
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS........... 237
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes............................................ 237
Modification of authorities to fund military construction
through payments-in-kind and to use residual value
payments-in-kind (sec. 2801)........................... 237
Extension and modification of temporary, limited
authority to use operation and maintenance funds for
construction projects in certain areas outside the
United States (sec. 2802).............................. 238
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 238
Authority for acceptance of funds to cover administrative
expenses associated with real property leases and
easements (sec. 2811).................................. 238
Application of cash payments received for utilities and
services (sec. 2812)................................... 238
Modification of authority to enter into long-term
contracts for receipt of utility services as
consideration for utility systems conveyances (sec.
2813).................................................. 238
Acquisition of real property at Naval Base Ventura
County, California (sec. 2814)......................... 238
Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military
Realignment................................................ 239
Realignment of Marine Corps forces in Asia-Pacific Region
(sec. 2821)............................................ 239
Modification of reporting requirements relating to Guam
realignment (sec. 2822)................................ 239
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances................................. 239
Land conveyance Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii
(sec. 2831)............................................ 239
Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial transfer (sec. 2832)....... 239
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 239
Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security
Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for
Security Studies (sec. 2841)........................... 239
Items of Special Interest.................................... 239
Department of Defense policy for sustainable buildings... 239
Homeowners Assistance Program............................ 240
Military Construction Project Data Sheets................ 241
Scope of work variations for military construction
projects............................................... 242
Traffic safety........................................... 242
U.S. military posture and resiliency in the Asia-Pacific. 243
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 245
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 245
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
Overview................................................... 245
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)..... 246
Weapons activities................................... 246
Directed stockpile work.............................. 246
Campaigns............................................ 247
Site Stewardship and Nuclear Operations.............. 248
Secure transportation asset.......................... 248
Defense Nuclear Security and Chief Information
Officer............................................ 248
Naval Reactors....................................... 249
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs............ 249
Nonproliferation and verification research and
development........................................ 249
Nonproliferation and international security.......... 250
International nuclear materials protection and
cooperation........................................ 250
Fissile Materials Disposition program................ 250
Global threat reduction initiative................... 251
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response........... 251
Office of the Administrator.......................... 251
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................ 251
Savannah River Site.................................. 251
Waste Treatment Plant................................ 252
Hanford Site......................................... 252
Idaho National Laboratory............................ 252
Los Alamos National Laboratory....................... 252
Oak Ridge Reservation................................ 252
Office of River Protection........................... 253
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.......................... 253
Security............................................. 253
Technology Development............................... 253
Program Direction.................................... 253
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)..................... 253
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 254
Establishment of Director for Cost Estimating and Program
Evaluation in National Nuclear Security Administration
(sec. 3111)............................................ 254
Plan for improvement and integration of financial
management of nuclear security enterprise (sec. 3112).. 254
Certification of security measures at atomic energy
defense facilities (sec. 3113)......................... 255
Plan for incorporating exascale computing into the
stockpile stewardship program (sec. 3114).............. 255
Integrated plutonium strategy (sec. 3115)................ 256
Authorization of modular building strategy as an
alternative to the replacement project for the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 3116)............ 256
Increase in construction design threshold (sec. 3117).... 256
Clarification of form of submission of cost estimates on
life extension programs and new nuclear facilities
(sec. 3118)............................................ 256
Subtitle C--Reports.......................................... 256
Assessment of nuclear nonproliferation programs of the
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3121)... 256
Modification of reviews relating to cost-benefit analysis
of management and operating contracts of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3122)............ 256
Modification of deadline for certain reports relating to
program on scientific engagement for nonproliferation
(sec. 3123)............................................ 257
Modification of certain reports on cost containment for
uranium capabilities replacement project (sec. 3124)... 257
Submission of interim report of Congressional Advisory
Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security
Enterprise (sec. 3125)................................. 257
Subtitle D--Technical Corrections............................ 257
Technical corrections to the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act (sec. 3131)......................... 257
Technical corrections to the Atomic Energy Defense Act
(sec. 3132)............................................ 257
Budget Item.................................................. 257
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund............................... 257
Items of Special Interest.................................... 258
B-61 Mod 12 life extension program................... 258
Review of National Nuclear Security Administration
Capital Projects................................... 258
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant project..... 259
Assessment of Department of Energy defense nuclear
facilities that will be transferred to the Department
of Energy Office of Environmental Management........... 260
Travel by scientists and other technical personnel to
conferences and other venues of benefit to the NNSA
mission................................................ 260
Use of the term National Security Laboratory in the
Atomic Energy Defense Act.............................. 260
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 261
Authorization (sec. 3201)................................ 261
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................. 263
Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)...................... 263
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES....................................... 265
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)... 265
Summary of National Defense Authorizations For Fiscal
Year 2014 Table........................................ 267
National Defense Budget Authority Implication Table...... 273
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT........................................... 277
Procurement (sec. 4101).................................. 278
Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec.
4102).................................................. 317
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.......... 327
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201).. 328
Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas
contingency operations (sec. 4202)..................... 359
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 361
Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301).................... 362
Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency
operations (sec. 4302)................................. 377
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL................................... 387
Military personnel (sec. 4401)........................... 388
Military personnel for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4402)............................................ 388
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 391
Other authorizations (sec. 4501)......................... 391
Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4502)............................................ 395
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................ 397
Military construction (sec. 4601)........................ 398
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS..... 415
Department of Energy national security authorizations
(sec. 4701)............................................ 416
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS......................................... 427
Departmental Recommendations............................. 427
Committee Action......................................... 427
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................ 429
Regulatory Impact........................................ 429
Changes in Existing Law.................................. 430
ADDITIONAL VIEWS................................................. 431
Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe........................... 431
Additional Views of Mr. McCain........................... 438
Additional Views of Mr. Ayotte........................... 442
Additional Views of Mr. Vitter........................... 448
Additional Views of Messrs. Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
Wicker, Ms. Ayotte, Mrs. Fischer, and Messrs. Vitter,
Blunt, and Cruz........................................ 450
Additional Views of Messrs. Inhofe and Sessions, Ms.
Ayotte, Mrs. Fischer, and Mr. Vitter................... 453
Calendar No. 91
113th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 113-44
======================================================================
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL
STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
June 20, 2013.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Levin, from the Committee on Armed Services,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1197]
The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
original bill (S. 1197) to authorize appropriations for the
fiscal year 2014 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities
of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and
recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
This bill would:
(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b)
research, development, test and evaluation, (c)
operation and maintenance and the revolving and
management funds of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2014;
(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each
military active duty component of the Armed Forces for
fiscal year 2014;
(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the
Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2014;
(4) impose certain reporting requirements;
(5) impose certain limitations with regard to
specific procurement and research, development, test
and evaluation actions and manpower strengths; provide
certain additional legislative authority, and make
certain changes to existing law;
(6) authorize appropriations for military
construction programs of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2014; and
(7) authorize appropriations for national security
programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2014.
Committee overview
The United States armed forces have been involved in armed
conflict since September 11, 2001. Now, after almost twelve
years of continuous conflict, U.S. forces are drawing down in
Afghanistan and are no longer deployed in Iraq. By the end of
2014, the United States plans to have completed the transition
of security responsibility in Afghanistan to the Afghanistan
National Security Forces (ANSF). Already, there are clear signs
that Afghan security forces are capable of taking the fight to
the Taliban, and are doing so effectively.
Nonetheless, the United States continues to face serious
security challenges around the globe.
In the Middle East, the situation in Syria continues to
grow worse, with the death toll rising, the refugee population
rapidly growing, the extremist al Nusrah Front expanding, the
security of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile in doubt, and
the risk of regional instability increasing, while Iran
continues to flout the international community with its
unacceptable pursuit of a nuclear weapons program.
In the Asia-Pacific region, the dictatorial North Korean
regime has made a series of belligerent declarations, while
announcing its intention to restart plutonium production,
testing a nuclear device, putting a satellite in orbit using
technologies associated with long range ballistic missiles, and
displaying a road-mobile missile launcher.
Al Qaeda continues to demonstrate an ability to mutate and
exploit safe havens in areas such as North Africa, the Horn of
Africa, and Yemen. While weakened, al Qaeda and its associated
forces remain focused on carrying out terrorist activities
against the United States and U.S. interests around the world.
Here at home, the United States remains uniquely vulnerable
to attacks on computer networks critical to our economy, to the
provision of public services, and to national security.
The men and women of our armed forces have worked honorably
and courageously to take on these challenges on our behalf,
often at great personal risk and significant sacrifice to
themselves and their families. The committee, the Congress, and
the American people owe them a debt of gratitude for this
service.
To date in this First Session of the 113th Congress, the
Committee on Armed Services has conducted 44 hearings and
formal briefings on the President's budget request for fiscal
year 2014, threats to our national security, and related
matters. In order to provide a framework for the consideration
of these matters, the committee identified 10 guidelines for
its consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014. These guidelines are as follows:
1. Sustain the quality of life of the men and women of the
all-volunteer force (active duty, National Guard and Reserves)
and their families, as well as Department of Defense civilian
personnel, through fair pay, policies and benefits, and address
the needs of the wounded, ill, and injured service members and
their families.
2. Reduce our Nation's strategic risk by taking action
aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness of the
military services to conduct the full range of their assigned
missions.
3. Provide our servicemen and women with the resources,
training, technology, equipment, and authorities they will need
to succeed in future combat, counterinsurgency, and stability
operations.
4. Enhance the capability of the U.S. armed forces to
support the ANSF and Afghan Local Police as the lead
responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan transitions
to the ANSF.
5. Enhance the capability of the U.S. armed forces and the
security forces of allied and friendly nations to defeat al
Qaeda, its affiliates and other violent extremist
organizations.
6. Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter
emerging and nontraditional threats, focusing on terrorism,
cyber warfare, and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and their means of delivery.
7. Address the threats from nuclear weapons and materials
by strengthening nonproliferation programs, maintaining a
credible nuclear deterrent, reducing the size of the nuclear
weapons stockpile, and ensuring the safety, security and
reliability of the stockpile, the delivery systems, and the
nuclear infrastructure.
8. Terminate troubled or unnecessary programs and
activities, identify efficiencies, and reduce defense
expenditures in light of the Nation's budget deficit problems.
Ensure the future capability, viability, and fiscal
sustainability of the all-volunteer force.
9. Emphasize the reduction of dependency on fossil fuels
and seek greater energy security and independence and pursue
technological advances in traditional and alternative energy
storage, power systems, operational energy tactical advantages,
renewable energy production, and more energy efficient ground,
air, and naval systems.
10. Promote aggressive and thorough oversight of the
Department's programs and activities to ensure proper
stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant
laws and regulations.
11. At the same time, the committee remains deeply
concerned about the continuing impact of sequestration on the
United States armed forces, and on U.S. national security.
While the committee has endeavored to address some of the
adverse impacts of sequestration in fiscal year 2013 on the
Department of Defense, the bill recommended by the committee
uses the budget level commonly recommended by the President,
the Senate, and the House of Representatives as a guidepost.
None of these budgets accounts for the possibility of continued
sequestration in fiscal year 2014.
12. Our senior military leaders have uniformly cautioned
Congress and the American people that the continuation of
sequestration in fiscal year 2014 will damage our security and
harm the troops they lead.
The Secretary of Defense testified that continued
sequestration will ``require dramatic reductions in core
military capabilities'' and ``the scope and activities of our
[armed forces around the] world.'' The Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff warned the committee that it will ``severely
limit our ability to implement our defense strategy. It will
put the nation at greater risk of coercion, and it will break
faith with men and women in uniform.''
The Secretary of the Army told the committee: ``Simply put,
to continue sequestration into fiscal year '14 and beyond would
not only be irresponsible [and] devastating to the force, but
it would also directly hamper our ability to . . . provide
sufficiently trained and ready forces to protect our national
interests.'' The Chief of Staff of the Army testified:
``The fiscal year '13 fiscal situation will have
grave and immediate readiness impacts on all forces not
serving in Afghanistan or forward in Korea--impacts
which will have a significant impact well into fiscal
year '14 and beyond. Just a few of the actions we will
be forced to take are, for example, we'll curtail
training for 80 percent of ground forces. This will
impact our units' basic warfighting skills and induce
shortfalls across critical specialties, including
aviation, intelligence, engineering, and even our
ability to recruit soldiers into our Army. . . . For
fiscal year '14 and beyond, sequestration will result
in the loss of at least an additional 100,000
personnel, soldiers from the active Army, the Army
National Guard, and the U.S. Army Reserve. . . .
Sequestration will result in delays to every one of our
10 major modernization programs, the inability to re-
set our equipment after 12 years of war, and
unacceptable reductions in unit and individual
training. . . . It will place an unreasonable burden on
the shoulders of our soldiers and civilians. . . . If
we do not have the resources to train and equip the
force, our soldiers, our young men and women, are the
ones who will pay the price, potentially with their
lives.''
The Chief of Naval Operations testified that sequestration
``would fundamentally change the Navy as currently organized,
trained and equipped.'' If sequestration is allowed to remain
in place in fiscal year 2014 and beyond, he told the committee:
``[O]ur Navy may be a fleet of around 230 ships. That
would be a loss of more than 50 ships, including the
loss of at least two carrier strike groups. We would be
compelled to retire ships early and reduce procurement
of new ships and aircraft. This would result in a
requisite reduction in our end strength. Every program
will be affected and . . . programs such as the F-35
Lightning II, next generation ballistic missile
submarine and Littoral Combat Ship might be reduced or
terminated. Inevitably, these changes will severely
damage our industrial base. Some shipyards will not be
able to sustain steady construction or maintenance
operations and may close or be inactivated. Aviation
depots will reduce their operations or become idle.
Aircraft and weapons manufacturers will slow or stop
their work entirely. In particular, the small firms
that are often the sole source for particular ship and
aircraft components will quickly be forced to shut
down. Once these companies and their engineers and
craftspeople move on to other work, they are hard to
reconstitute, sometimes impossible, at a later date
when our national security demands it.''
Even before the imposition of further sequestration cuts in
fiscal year 2014, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations told the
committee, the Navy will have to ``reduce intermediate-level
ship maintenance, defer an additional 84 aircraft and 184
engines for depot maintenance, and defer eight of 33 planned
depot-level surface ship maintenance availabilities. At our
shore bases, we have deferred about 16% of our planned FY13
shore facility sustainment and upgrades, about $1 billion worth
of work. . . . By the end of FY13, a majority of our non-
deployed ships and aviation squadrons--nearly two thirds of the
fleet--will be less than fully mission capable and not
certified for Major Combat Operations.''
The Commandant of the Marine Corps stated: ``Sequestration
will leave ships in ports, aircraft grounded for want of
necessary maintenance and flying hours, units only partially
trained and reset after 12 years of continuous combat, and
modernization programs canceled.'' The result, he added, would
be ``a lapse in American leadership'' that ``will have a
deleterious effect on the stability of global order, the
perceptions of our enemies, and the confidence of our allies.''
The Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps testified that as
a result of sequestration in fiscal year 2013 alone: ``The
Marine Corps will have 44 scheduled aircraft depot inductions
across all type/model/series that will not occur as a result of
sequestration reduction to the FY13 budget. Of the 44 aircraft,
23 are F/A-18A-D aircraft. This will result in less aircraft
available for assignment to Marine F/A-18 squadrons and reduce
the assets available for training and operational support. . .
. The long term effect on non-deployed F/A-18 squadrons is the
inability of the unit to achieve and maintain minimum combat
readiness required for follow-on deployments.''
The Secretary of the Air Force told the committee that
sequestration will ``severely degrade Air Force readiness.'' He
explained:
``Lost flight hours will cause unit stand downs which
will result in severe, rapid, and long-term unit combat
readiness degradation. We have already ceased
operations for one-third of our fighter and bomber
force. Within 60 days of a stand down, the affected
units will be unable to meet emergent or operations
plans requirements. Lost currency training requires six
months to a year to return to current suboptimal
levels, with desired flying proficiency for crewmembers
requiring even longer. . . . Depot delays will also
result in the grounding of some affected aircraft. The
deferments mean idled production shops, a degradation
of workforce proficiency and productivity, and
corresponding future volatility and operational costs.
It can take two-to-three years to recover full
restoration of depot workforce productivity and
proficiency. . . . All of these sequestration impacts
negatively affect Air Force full-spectrum readiness at
a time when we have been striving to reverse a
declining trend in this critical area. . . .
Sequestration cuts to Air Force modernization will
impact every one of our investment programs. These
program disruptions will, over time, cost more taxpayer
dollars to rectify contract restructures and program
inefficiencies, raise unit costs, and delay delivery of
validated capabilities to warfighters in the field. The
drastic reduction to modernization programs reduces our
Air Force's competitive advantage and decreases the
probability of mission success. . . .''
The Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force warned: ``Lost
flight hours will cause unit stand-downs which will result in
severe, rapid, and long-term unit combat readiness degradation.
We have already ceased operations for one-third of our fighter
and bomber force. Within 60 days of a stand down, the affected
units will be unable to meet emergent or operations plans
requirements. Lost currency training requires six months to a
year to return to current sub-optimal levels, with desired
flying proficiency for crewmembers requiring even longer.''
Our country relies on the men and women of our military and
the civilians who support them to keep us safe, and to help us
meet U.S. national security objectives around the world. We
expect them to put their lives on the line every day, and in
return we tell them that we will stand by them and their
families, that we will provide them the best training, the best
equipment, and the best support available to any military
anywhere in the world. Sequestration in fiscal year 2013 is
already undermining that commitment. The testimony of our
military leaders is clear: if sequestration continues, our
commitment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines--and
our national security itself--will be severely damaged.
Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget authority
implication
The Administration's budget request for national defense
discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services for fiscal year 2014 was $625.2
billion. Of this amount, $526.6 billion was requested for base
Department of Defense programs, $80.7 billion was requested for
overseas contingency operations, and $17.9 billion was
requested for national security programs in the Department of
Energy.
The bill authorizes $625.1 billion for national defense
discretionary programs for fiscal year 2014. This total
includes $526.6 billion for base Department of Defense
programs, $80.7 billion for overseas contingency operations,
and $17.8 billion for national security programs in the
Department of Energy.
The Administration's fiscal year 2014 budget for national
defense also included discretionary programs outside the
jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Armed Services,
discretionary programs that do not require further
authorization and mandatory programs that are in current law.
When these programs are added to the Administration's budget
the request for national defense totaled $641.1 billion.
The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments
in division D of this report summarize the direct
authorizations and the equivalent budget authority levels for
fiscal year 2014 defense programs. The first table summarizes
committee action on the authorizations within the jurisdiction
of this committee. It includes the authorization for spending
from the trust fund of the Armed Forces Retirement Home which
is outside the national defense budget function. The second
table summarizes the total budget authority implication for
national defense by adding funding for items that are not
within the jurisdiction of this committee or are already
authorized.
Budgetary effects of this Act (sec. 4)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the budgetary effects of this Act be determined in
accordance with the procedures established in the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010 (title I of Public Law 111-139).
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for procurement activities at the levels
identified in section 4101 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Multiyear procurement authority for E-2D aircraft (sec. 121)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to buy E-2D aircraft under a
multiyear procurement contract. The Navy estimates that it
stands to achieve a roughly 10 percent savings under the
multiyear approach, as compared to annual procurement
contracts.
CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program (sec. 122)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 122 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) by: (1) in
subsection (a)(1), striking ``$10,500,000,000'' and inserting
``$12,887,000,000;'' (2) in subsection (b), adding a new factor
for adjustment allowing increases or decreases in the cost of
the ship that are attributable to the shipboard test program;
and (3) changing the heading of the subsection to reflect that
the name of the program has changed from CVN-21 to CVN-78.
The provision would require a quarterly report providing
the CVN-79 program manager's cost estimate for CVN-79. The
provision would require the Navy to halt payment of fee on any
cost-type or incentive fee contract associated with CVN-79
until such time that the variance between the total program
cost estimate and the mandated cost cap has been corrected.
The changes in the CVN-78 cost cap are related to three
major areas:
(1) reflecting allowable changes in the original cost
cap due to economic inflation, changes in federal,
state, or local laws, changes in nonrecurring design
and engineering costs attributable to achieving
compliance with the cost limitation, and changes to
correct deficiencies that may affect the safety of the
ship and personnel;
(2) cost increases from the shipyard, resulting from
increases in labor costs, material costs, and design
costs, offset by a reduction in shipyard's fee; and
(3) cost increases in government-furnished equipment.
The cost increases in the latter two categories are changes
outside the original, allowable changes in the cost cap, and
are troublesome. The Navy had envisioned the CVN-78 and CVN-79
(then called ``CVNX-1'' and ``CVNX-2'') as evolutionary ships
that would implement new technologies gradually as they
matured. However, the Department of Defense determined that
planned incremental improvements for CVNX-1 did not justify the
significant investments nor match the pace of technology, given
the length of time needed to build the carrier. Instead, the
CVNX-1 and CVNX-2 designs were combined into a single,
transformational ship design, called ``CVN-21,'' with the
intent to skip a generation of technology, while meeting
operational timelines for delivery.
This has resulted in cost increases in the shipyard, and
costs increases in the new technologies developed and designed
to be installed as government-furnished equipment. The shipyard
has not been as efficient as it could be, but combining these
two ships and maintaining the original construction schedule
for operational reasons has resulted in reduced productivity
and inefficiencies in the shipyard's effort. All told, this has
resulted in roughly 40 percent of the reason to raise the cost
cap.
There have also been cost increases in the equipment beyond
the control of the shipyard. These include the
``transformational'' technologies of the electromagnetic
aircraft launch system (EMALS), the dual-band radar (DBR), and
advanced arresting gear (AAG). While each of these technologies
represents an improvement in capability and promise substantial
reductions in life cycle costs, collectively, these
technologies resulted in roughly one third of the increase to
the total construction costs of CVN-78.
As a result of the scrutiny of the CVN-78 program, the Navy
believes that they and the shipyard can deliver the CVN-79
within the cost cap for the program recently adjusted by the
Secretary of the Navy. This derives from a number of factors,
including:
(1) CVN-79 construction will start with a complete
design and a complete bill of material;
(2) CVN-79 construction will start with a firm set of
stable requirements;
(3) CVN-79 construction will start with the
development complete on a host of new technologies
inserted on CVN 78 ranging from the EMALS and DBR, to
key valves in systems throughout the ship; and
(4) CVN-79 construction will start with a revised
construction plan that emphasizes the completion of
work and ship outfitting as early as possible in the
construction process to optimize cost and ultimately
schedule performance.
The Administration and Congress chose to ignore the lessons
repeatedly and painfully learned in previous shipbuilding
programs that resulted in delays and cost increases. A decision
to skip a generation of technology must be accompanied by an
operational assessment of the need date for the operational
capability and a plan to ensure new generations of technologies
are developed, tested, and ready for installation at the
optimum time during the construction of the ship.
Unfortunately, the decision on the construction cycle for CVN-
78 construction was driven more by the need to replace the USS
Enterprise at the end of her service life and the need to
maintain workload and the industrial base of suppliers for the
sole U.S. builder of aircraft carriers. The committee is
committed to working with the Department of the Navy to ensure
these lessons are not learned again in future Navy vessel
construction.
Repeal of requirements relating to procurement of future surface
combatants (sec. 123)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 125 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). Under section 125, the
Navy was prohibited from obligating or expending funds for
construction of, or advance procurement of materials for, naval
surface combatants to be constructed after fiscal year 2011
until the Secretary of the Navy had provided specific reports
to Congress. The report submitted by the Secretary of the Navy
to Congress of February 2010 provided the Department of the
Navy's implementation plan to complete these reports.
Modification of requirements to sustain Navy airborne intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities (sec. 124)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 112 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to require the
Secretary of the Navy to maintain sufficient numbers of EP-3
Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II (ARIES
II) Spiral 3 aircraft and Special Projects Aircraft (SPA)
version P909 to support the wartime operational plans of U.S.
Pacific Command (PACOM), and to maintain the capacity to
support five EP-3s for allocation to the combatant commands
under the Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP),
until the Navy's multi-intelligence Broad-Area Maritime
Surveillance System Triton aircraft with signals intelligence
(SIGINT) capabilities reaches initial operational capability
(IOC). The provision also would require the Secretary to
upgrade the final (12th) EP-3 ARIES II aircraft to the Spiral 3
configuration, and to correct electronic intelligence (ELINT)
obsolescence problems on both the EP-3 and the SPA aircraft.
Finally, the provision would require the Chairman of the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council to coordinate with the
Commanders of PACOM and the U.S. Special Operations Command to
determine requirements for the special capabilities provided by
the SPA aircraft, and would require the Secretary to sustain
sufficient numbers of SPA aircraft to meet those requirements
until the Navy achieves IOC of a system with capabilities
greater than or equal to the SPA.
Section 112 of Public Law 111-383 was intended to prevent a
trough in capabilities as the Navy developed replacements for
the EP-3 and the SPA intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) systems. The committee is persuaded that
the terms of that provision have not been effective in
preventing such a trough. The Navy is planning to remove a
large number of personnel from the EP-3 and SPA programs and to
use those billets to stand up an early version of the Triton
program. However, this version of Triton is purely a complement
to the P-8 Maritime Patrol aircraft, and does not have SIGINT
capabilities. The personnel reductions in the EP-3 and SPA
fleets will have the effect of substantially reducing the
number of aircraft that can be supported for GFMAP allocation
and wartime operations plans. The multi-intelligence version of
Triton, with a capable SIGINT suite, is not planned to achieve
IOC until very late in this decade. Clearly, there will be a
trough in ISR support for the combatant commands for a number
of years if these plans are implemented.
In addition, the ELINT systems on both the SPA and EP-3
aircraft are very old and pose serious obsolescence problems.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends
authorization of funding to address these obsolescence
problems, as well as to upgrade the final (12th) EP-3 primary
aircraft authorization to the Spiral 3 configuration.
Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 125)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), in coordination with
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees on the current
concept of operations and expected survivability attributes of
each of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) sea frames when they
would be employed according to the concept of operations.
When addressing survivability attributes, the committee
expects the CNO's report to deal specifically with: (1)
comparative assessments of the survivability of the LCS sea
frames with the survivability of other Navy combatants and with
the adversarial surface combatants; and (2) operational
assessments of the core defensive capabilities of each of the
LCS sea frames, especially when employed against air threats
expected to face the LCS under the concept of operations.
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
Tactical airlift fleet of the Air Force (sec. 131)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to consider, as part of the
recapitalization of the tactical airlift fleet of the Air
Force: (1) upgrades to legacy C-130H aircraft designed to help
such aircraft meet the fuel economy goals of the Air Force; and
(2) retention of such upgraded aircraft in the tactical airlift
fleet. It would also require that the Secretary ensure that
upgrades to the C-130H fleet are made in a manner that is
proportional to the number of C-130H aircraft in the force
structure of the active Air Force, the Air Force Reserve, and
the Air National Guard.
Modification of limitations on retirement of B-52 bomber
aircraft (sec. 132)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 131(a)(1) of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (P.L. 109-364) by
striking the term ``in a common capability configuration.'' The
lack of a definition raises concerns about whether it could
also apply to the aircraft's nuclear capabilities or other
modifications and upgrades on the fleet.
The committee notes that the President has yet to provide
Congress the force reduction strategy to comply with the limits
imposed by the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START),
despite a requirement to do so by section 1042(a) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112--81; 125 Stat. 1575). Without such strategic guidance,
the committee is unable to fully perform its oversight role, as
well as evaluate and prioritize resources designated to support
U.S. strategic forces.
During a hearing on April 17, 2013, concerning Department
of Defense nuclear force and policies, Senator Mark Udall, the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Chairman asked Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs Madelyn
Creedon whether the fiscal year 2014 budget request reflected
the New START force structure changes. Secretary Creedon
responded that ``the way that the fiscal year 2014 budget
request is structured is it allows both the Air Force and the
Navy to continue their preparatory work that will support a
decision that will be made in the context of fiscal year 2015
to implement either a reduction in the total number of deployed
and total number of delivery systems. . . . The decision as to
which of these options we choose has not been made yet, but the
way that the '14 budget structure is designed is to preserve
the option as we get closer in time, as we understand more
about the pros and cons of each option, and frankly also as we
get more into where the whole geopolitical situation is going,
where we're going with further discussions with Russia, it
allows us to maintain that flexibility for as long as possible
before we make a decision.''
With the approaching New START deadline, it is more likely
that the committee will be asked to consider changes to U.S.
strategic force structure when it meets next year to review the
fiscal year 2015 budget request. The committee believes it is
of great importance that the President provide this report, as
well as other relevant documentation--such as the report
required by section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239)--so that it may
fully assess any proposed changes to U.S. strategic forces.
The committee supports the Air Force's request that it
adjust the current requirements relative to maintaining certain
nuclear-capable bombers. However, given that the relevant
strategic planning remains incomplete, the committee notes that
any reduction, conversion, or decommissioning of nuclear-
certified strategic bombers must comply with the requirements
of section 1042 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
the Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
Repeal of requirement for maintenance of certain retired KC--135E
aircraft (sec. 133)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 135(b) of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
Section 135(b) requires that the Secretary of the Air Force
maintain at least 74 of the KC-135E aircraft retired after
September 30, 2006 in a condition that would allow recall of
the aircraft to future service in the Air Force Reserve, Air
National Guard, or active forces aerial refueling force
structure.
Under the Defense Department's revised strategic guidance,
the existing force of KC-10 and KC-135R tankers, along with
modernization under the KC-46A program, the Air Force has
sufficient tanker assets now and throughout the future years
defense program to meet requirements without the need to
reactivate any of the KC-135E aircraft. Therefore, there is
little need to incur the expense of maintaining these 74 KC-
135E aircraft in a higher readiness status.
Prohibition of procurement of unnecessary C-27J aircraft by the Air
Force (sec. 134)
The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the
Secretary of the Air Force from obligating or expending any
funds for the procurement of C-27J aircraft not already on
contract as of June 1, 2013.
Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters
Multiyear procurement authority for C-130J aircraft (sec. 151)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to buy C-130J aircraft under a
multiyear procurement contract for the Department of the Air
Force and the Department of the Navy. The Air Force estimates
that the Department of Defense stands to achieve a roughly 9.5
percent savings under the multiyear approach, as compared to
annual procurement contracts.
Sense of Senate on the United States helicopter industrial base (sec.
152)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should take
into consideration the health of the U.S. helicopter industrial
base when building the Department's annual budget.
Budget Items
Army
Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System
The budget request included $142.1 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army, to procure four Enhanced Medium Altitude
Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (EMARSS) aircraft. In
section 934, the committee recommends a provision that would
require the Secretary of Defense to transfer Air Force C-12
Liberty aircraft to the Army and terminates the EMARSS
procurement program. However, the Army will require funds to
convert the Air Force C-12 Liberty aircraft to the EMARSS
configuration to meet Army requirements. The committee directs
that the EMARSS funds be utilized to convert the transferred
Air Force C-12 Liberty aircraft to the EMARSS configuration to
meet Army requirements. Any funds remaining after all EMARSS
conversions are complete may be used to recapitalize current
Army MARSS aircraft.
UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter
The budget request included $1.0 billion in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA), for the UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter.
At the Army's request, the committee recommends a decrease of
$20.0 million in APA for the UH-60M Black Hawk and an increase
of $20.0 million in PE 23744A for aircraft modifications and
product improvement programs.
Paladin Integrated Management
The budget request included $260.2 million in Procurement
of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the
Paladin Integrated Management (PIM). At the Army's request, the
committee recommends a decrease of $40.7 million in WTCV for
PIM and an increase of $40.7 million in PE 64854A for artillery
systems engineering manufacturing and demonstration.
XM25 counter defilade target engagement weapon system
The budget request included $69.1 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the XM25 counter
defilade target engagement weapon system. The XM25 is a grenade
launcher that fires a 25mm projectile selectively programmed to
detonate in the air at a designated range. The XM25 is intended
to provide infantry and other units with a more precise
capability to engage targets fighting from behind terrain,
walls, or other protections.
The committee understands that prototypes of this weapon
were acquired, initially tested for safety, and deployed to
Afghanistan for a forward operational assessment. A malfunction
during this assessment has raised very serious questions about
the safety and effectiveness of the weapon. The committee
further understands that the Army is in the process of opening
consideration of other available or developmental grenade
launchers that are capable of firing programmable munitions.
Given the unreliable performance of the XM25 and the Army's
review of alternative air burst weapon systems, the committee
recommends a decrease of $69.1 million in WCTV for the XM25
counter defilade target engagement weapon system.
Carbine
The budget request included $70.8 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the Army's small arms
carbine program. The committee notes that $49.5 million of this
would be for the procurement of a replacement carbine
identified as the result of a competitive evaluation.
The committee understands that the Army has reached a
decision not to continue with the individual carbine
competitive evaluation program. Therefore, the committee
concludes that funds to procure a replacement carbine are no
longer needed and recommends a decrease of $49.5 million in
WTCV. The committee supports procurement of M4Al carbines as
requested in the budget.
Based on the Army's decision to terminate this effort, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army, or designee, to
provide the congressional defense committees, not later than 90
days after termination, a briefing on the justification for
this decision and a revised small arms modernization strategy.
The committee believes that a stable small arms modernization
program is essential and should be a key element of the Army's
overarching modernization strategy moving forward. A revised
small arms strategy should include a description of M4A1
procurements required annually to sustain the force until a
next generation small arms program is established.
5.56mm, 7.62mm, .50 caliber, and 30mm reductions
The budget request included $1.5 billion in Procurement of
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $112.1 million was for 5.56mm,
$58.5 million was for 7.62mm, $80.0 million was for .50
caliber, and $69.5 million was for 30mm.
The Department of Defense has identified specific amounts
in these ammunition accounts, in the fiscal year 2014 base
budget request, for reduction as a result of competition,
reduced unit costs, and/or reduced requirements.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $74.5
million in PAA: $25.0 million in 5.56mm, $5.0 million in
7.62mm, $25.0 million in .50 caliber, and $19.5 million in
30mm.
25mm reduction
The budget request included $1.5 billion in Procurement of
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $16.5 million was for 25mm.
The committee notes that per fiscal year 2014 Army budget
documentation, the XM1083 high explosive air burst (HEAB) and
the XM1081 target practice (TP) ammunition for the Individual
Counter Defilade Weapon System are not approved for service
use.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.3
million in PAA, 25mm: $8.8 million for XM1083 HEAB, and $1.5
million for XM1081 TP.
Navy
Sustaining capabilities of EP-3 and Special Projects Aircraft
The budget request included in Aircraft Procurement, Navy,
$55.9 million for the EP-3 series aircraft, and $3.7 million
for the Special Projects Aircraft (SPA). Elsewhere in this
report, the committee recommends a provision that would require
the Secretary of the Navy to sustain these two aircraft fleets
until the end of the decade, when replacement programs are
scheduled to achieve initial operational capability.
To sustain the ability of these systems to support the
combatant commands with the capacity and capabilities required,
several actions are necessary. One, the Navy needs to complete
the Spiral 3 upgrade to all 12 of the EP-3 primary aircraft
authorization, rather than stopping at 11, as proposed in this
budget request. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
additional $8.0 million for EP-3 series procurement.
Two, due to the extreme ages of the electronics on certain
sensors on these aircraft, the Navy faces serious obsolescence
problems in the EP-3 and SPA fleets. The Navy's Multi-
Intelligence Sensor Development project is developing sensors
for the future MQ-4C Triton Broad Area Maritime Surveillance
system that could correct the obsolescence problems for the EP-
3 and SPA aircraft. The committee recommends authorization of
$14.0 million for EP-3 series procurement, and $5.0 million for
SPA procurement to procure and install these sensors, which
will introduce new capabilities into the fleet before the
Triton multi-intelligence version achieves operational status.
Three, the committee recommends authorization of an
additional $5.0 million for the SPA program office in the SPA
procurement line to sustain engineering, integration, and
technical services support.
Close-in weapon system modifications
The budget request included $56.3 million to purchase and
install various modifications for the close-in weapon system
(CIWS), including $7.7 million for reliability,
maintainability, and availability (RMA) kits. The CIWS is the
primary, last ditch self defense system in the Navy fleet.
The Navy has begun experiencing reliability problems with
the latest CIWS version, the Block 1B. To deal with these
issues, the Navy has developed the RMA kit that will fix known
reliability problems and also deal with issues of parts
obsolescence. The Navy can install the RMA kits dockside,
without having to send the CIWS or its modules to the depot. In
addition, installing these kits will allow the Navy to extend
time between major CIWS overhauls, while still maintaining an
acceptable level of operational availability.
The committee believes that the Navy should move more
expeditiously on fielding these kits to the fleet, and
recommends an increase of $6.4 million to buy 24 additional RMA
kits.
Afloat forward staging base
The budget request included $134.9 million in the National
Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for the third mobile landing
platform (MLP-3) for which the bulk of the funding was provided
in fiscal year 2012. The request also included $524.0 million
in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), to procure the
fourth mobile landing platform (MLP-4).
The Navy planned to use NDSF funds to complete MLP-3 as the
first afloat forward staging base (AFSB-1) platform and use the
SCN funds to buy MLP-4 as the second afloat forward staging
base (AFSB-2). As a result of reviewing requirements for the
AFSB program, the Navy has decided that some funding in the
request needs to be shifted from the NDSF account to the SCN
account, that some funds in the NDSF budget request are now not
required to execute the AFSB program in either account.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase to SCN of
$55.3 million and a decrease to the NDSF of $112.2 million.
DDG-51
The budget request for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
(SCN), included $1,615.6 million to purchase one DDG-51
destroyer, and $388.6 million in advance procurement to buy
DDG-51 destroyers in later years. This would be the second year
of a multiyear contract for the DDG-51 program.
Congress added $1.0 billion to the fiscal year 2013 budget
request to purchase an additional DDG-51 beyond the two DDG-51s
in the budget request. After the implementation of
sequestration earlier this year, the Navy found that
sequestration left the Navy several hundred million dollars
short of having enough funds to award the contract for the
third ship.
The committee specifically recommended multiyear
procurement authority last year that allowed for buying this
extra ship and believes that the Navy should buy the extra ship
to help meet force structure shortfalls.
The committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in
SCN for completion of prior year shipbuilding programs to help
buy this additional DDG-51.
Air Force
MQ-9
The budget request included $272.2 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the MQ-9 program to buy 12
aircraft and to pay for various production support activities.
According to program officials, the program has $30.0 million
in fiscal year 2012 APAF funds that are excess to program
needs, since some planned aircraft procurements for fiscal year
2012 were delayed until fiscal year 2013. These funds could be
used to pay for other activities within the MQ-9 program.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0
million in fiscal year 2014 for procurement of MQ-9, which the
Air Force can offset with the available prior year funds.
Reaper synthetic aperture radar
The budget request included $35.0 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force, for the procurement of upgrades to the
Lynx synthetic aperture radar system for the Reaper unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV). This request would be the first year of
retrofits for what is planned to be a procurement costing
$125.0 million over the future-years defense program.
The committee recommends no funding for this program. There
is insufficient justification for upgrading this system because
field studies and Air Force subject matter experts acknowledge
that the system is almost never used. Furthermore, the upgrade
is intended to provide a rudimentary dismount moving target
indication (MTI) capability, while the Air Force is separately
funding a robust dismount MTI radar program for the Reaper UAV.
C-130 aircraft modifications
The fiscal year 2014 budget request did not request funding
for the C-130 avionics modernization program (AMP), but
included $9.9 million for communication, navigation,
surveillance/air traffic management (CNS/ATM) upgrades and $4.3
million for upgrading cockpit voice and digital data recorders
(CVR/DVR) for legacy C-130 aircraft in Aircraft Procurement,
Air Force (APAF). The program of record for modernizing the
legacy C-130 aircraft until the fiscal year 2013 budget request
was the C-130 AMP. When the Air Force announced a decision to
cancel AMP, the program was already in low rate initial
production and had delivered five aircraft, four additional
kits, and training devices.
Section 143 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) prevented the Secretary
of the Air Force from canceling or modifying the avionics
modernization program for C-130 aircraft until 90 days after he
submits a cost-benefit analysis comparing the original C-130
AMP with a program that would upgrade and modernize the legacy
C-130 airlift fleet using a reduced scope program for avionics
and mission planning systems. Earlier this year, the Air Force
contracted with the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to
conduct this study. The Air Force indicates that the study
results should be available later in calendar year 2013.
The committee strongly supports modernization of the
Nation's legacy C-130 fleet, and fears that the delay in the
awarding the study contract will cause the Air Force to lose
another year in modernizing the legacy C-130 fleet. Therefore,
the committee recommends an increase of $47.3 million in APAF
to fund modifications of legacy C-130 with either: (1) the
original AMP upgrade; or (2) an alternative program that would
upgrade and modernize the legacy C-130 airlift fleet using a
reduced scope program for avionics and mission planning
systems. The use of these funds and the use of the funds for
CNS/ATM and CVR/DVR upgrades included in the budget should be
informed by the results of the IDA study. The committee directs
that none of these funds be obligated or expended until 90 days
after the Secretary submits the IDA report. The committee also
reminds the Air Force that the restrictions in section 143
continue to apply.
Defense-wide
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
The budget request included $1.89 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide, for the acquisition and support of special
operations-unique mission kits for the MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is
responsible for the development and acquisition of special
operations capabilities to, among other things, effectively
carry out operations against terrorist networks while avoiding
collateral damage.
The committee approved an above threshold reprogramming of
funds requested by the Department of Defense in January 2013 to
provide for the development, integration, and testing of
additional capabilities to address identified technology gaps
on USSOCOM UAVs. The committee understands that this
reprogramming only partially addressed such technology gaps.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $13.0 million
in Procurement, Defense-wide, to field additional capabilities
for the MQ-9 UAV.
Items of Special Interest
Army air-to-ground rocket and missile programs
The committee supports the Department of Defense's efforts
to find and take advantage of opportunities to develop joint
programs that can reduce costs and meet service requirements.
In this regard the committee notes that the Marine Corps has
developed a weapon system that transforms the standard 2.75-
inch Hydra-type rocket into laser-guided precision munitions.
The advantages of a smaller precision-guided rocket are
apparent, not just in terms of reduced cost but also
operational effectiveness as the lower weight of each rocket
allows an aircraft to carry more of them increasing the number
of engagements possible per sortie. The committee recognizes,
however, that a new smaller, precision-guided rocket must be a
capability integrated with each services' other air-to-ground
rocket and missile portfolios. The Air Force, for example, is
in the process of qualifying this precision rocket on a variety
of its multi-role combat aircraft.
Given efforts to date by the Marine Corps and the Air
Force, and the potential for achieving a precision engagement
capability at a significantly reduced cost, the committee is
interested to know the Army's analysis of this capability as
part of its portfolio of armed helicopter rocket and missile
munitions. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Army, or designee, to brief the congressional defense
committees, not later than December 1, 2013, on the Army's
assessment of its current and future requirements and
capabilities for air-to-ground precision-guided rocket and
missile munitions.
Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the Government Accountability Office to provide the
congressional defense committees, not later than December 1,
2013, with an assessment of each of the services' ground-attack
rocket and missile programs. This assessment shall examine
where there are potential redundancies in service air-to-ground
rocket and missile programs; make recommendations where the
services could benefit from a consolidation of these
requirements and capabilities; and identify the savings, if
any, associated with the consolidation of such programs.
Army and Marine Corps initiatives to improve armored vehicle fuel
efficiency
The committee notes the commitment of the Army and Marine
Corps to reduce the operational fuel consumption of their
current and future armored vehicles. The benefits of lower fuel
consumption without sacrificing performance include not only
reduced cost, but also reduced vulnerability of theater
logistics storage and resupply activity, and increased
operational flexibility. This is consistent with congressional
intent found in section 2911 of title 10, United States Code,
requiring consideration of fuel logistics support requirements
in planning, requirements development, and acquisition
processes.
The committee is aware of efforts on the part of the Army
and Marine Corps to implement consideration of the fully
burdened cost of fuel into its plans for reset, upgrade, and
modernization of their armored vehicle fleets as well as in the
requirements determination and development of their next
generation armored vehicles. In this regard the committee is
interested to learn more about Army and Marine Corps efforts to
reduce fuel consumption that could result in near-term savings.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, and the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
Acquisition, or their designees, to provide the congressional
defense committees with briefings on their plans and efforts to
achieve improved fuel efficiency in their current armored
vehicle fleets. These briefings, by armored vehicle type, shall
include, but not be limited to, the Army and Marine Corps
priorities and objectives, plans and schedules for research and
development, investments to date and planned over the future-
years defense program, government and commercial research and
development efforts including testing results that illustrate
technological challenges and potential, and an assessment of
the competitive environment for development and production of
capable and affordable technologies to achieve greater fuel
efficiency. The Secretaries shall provide these briefings not
later than 60 days after enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
Close air support requirements
The Joint Strike Fighter is designed to replace the F-16
and A-10 in the Air Force inventory. The A-10 has served as the
Air Force's primary close air support asset, having been
designed for that specific mission with characteristics that
permit it to operate and maneuver at low altitude and slow
speeds. The aircraft is also heavily armored to ensure the
highest survivability for the pilot and vital aircraft systems.
To ensure that the Department of Defense is not heading
toward a situation where there may be gaps in capability to
meet close air support requirements when the A-10 is retired,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Army, to conduct a study
to determine whether there will be any shortfalls in capability
that will be incurred when the Air Force transitions from a
fleet having A-10 aircraft to a fleet consisting entirely of F-
22 and F-35 aircraft. If there are any gaps between
capabilities and requirements, the Secretary of the Air Force
should present alternatives for meeting those requirements. The
Secretary shall submit this study with the fiscal year 2015
budget submission.
Comptroller General review of the Ford-class aircraft carrier program
The Navy is developing the Ford-class nuclear powered
aircraft carrier (CVN-78) to serve as the future centerpiece of
the carrier strike group. Ford-class carriers will introduce
several advanced technologies that are intended to create
operational efficiencies while enabling higher sortie rates
with reduced manpower compared to current carriers. As
discussed elsewhere in this report, however, these new
technologies have led to cost and schedule problems in
constructing the first ship of the class.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recently
reported on significant technology delays, construction
inefficiencies, testing shortfalls, and cost and schedule
pressures currently facing CVN-78. The committee remains
concerned that these issues could delay and limit demonstration
of eventual CVN-78 capabilities and potentially affect cost,
schedule, and performance outcomes for the next ship, CVN-79.
Section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required the Secretary of
the Navy to report what program management and cost control
measures the Navy will employ in constructing the second Ford-
class aircraft carrier. The Secretary of the Navy's report in
response to that requirement identified a number of changes in
the way CVN-79 will be built that will help improve on the
performance on CVN-78.
In light of these concerns, the committee directs the GAO
to undertake a follow-on review of Ford-class carrier
acquisition program. Specifically, the committee directs the
Comptroller General to review:
(1) program management and cost control measures the
Navy plans to employ in constructing the CVN-79 ship,
as identified in its May 2013 report to Congress, in
order to determine the extent to which these may be
effective in controlling costs. As part of this
analysis, the Comptroller General should evaluate the
Navy's plans for executing the detail design and
construction contract for CVN-79, and should pay
particular attention to components of the Navy's plan
intended to accommodate remaining schedule risk in the
CVN-78 building program;
(2) sufficiency of the Navy's post-delivery test
plans for CVN-78 in facilitating timely demonstration
of ship capabilities. As part of this analysis, the
Comptroller General should evaluate the extent to which
land-based testing delays for critical ship
technologies have complicated the Navy's planned post-
delivery testing activities and schedule;
(3) Department of Defense (DOD) analysis underpinning
the Navy's current capability estimates for CVN-78,
progress made in meeting the ship's capability
requirements, and gaps that may exist between the
likely performance of the ship and its major capability
requirements; and
(4) maturity and implementation of plans by the
shipbuilder to manage the workforce during concurrent
construction of CVN-78 and CVN-79.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
submit a report on his review to the congressional defense
committees by April 30, 2014.
Comptroller General review of the Littoral Combat Ship program
The Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program is intended
to be a relatively smaller, more affordable vessel than
cruisers or destroyers that carries modular payloads supporting
the anti-surface warfare, mine countermeasures, and anti-
submarine warfare mission area.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recently
reported to the committee on significant concerns about the LCS
program.
In light of these concerns, the committee directs GAO to
undertake a follow-on review of LCS acquisition program.
Specifically, the committee directs the Comptroller General to
review:
(1) seaframe production and testing, including:
(a) seaframe developmental test activities
and changes made to correct deficiencies
identified during testing to date;
(b) weight management for both variants of
the seaframe;
(c) Navy plans for verifying survivability,
including the use of surrogate aluminum
structures; and
(d) plans for achieving greater commonality
between the variants, and progress made in
executing such plans;
(2) mission module development and testing, including
developmental test activities and changes the Navy
plans to correct deficiencies identified during testing
to date;
(3) lessons the Navy may be learning from the
deployment of LCS-1 to Singapore;
(4) results of Navy studies on LCS requirements and
technical capabilities, and any recommendations for
changes to the design and/or capabilities of either the
current LCS configurations or potential future LCS
configurations;
(5) role of the LCS Council in overseeing LCS
acquisition and fleet introduction.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
submit a report on his review to the congressional defense
committees by April 30, 2014.
Defense ground radar programs
The Senate report accompanying S. 1390 (S. Rept. 111-35) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84) raised concerns regarding the requirements,
capabilities, and affordability of the Marine Corps TPS-80
Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR). While the TPS-80 G/
ATOR program has made progress recently, the committee notes
that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report of March
2013 titled ``Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected
Weapon Programs'' (GAO-13-294SP) found that the G/ATOR program
has more than doubled in unit cost, total program costs, and
research and development costs since the program began in 2005.
The Senate report also noted that the Marine Corps was at
that time reviewing the G/ATOR mobile ground multi-mode radar
program for possible joint development with the Army.
Now, each of the military departments is pursuing separate
ground radar programs, including the Army TPQ-53, the Marine
Corps TPS-80, and the Air Force TPS-78 and TPS-703. The
committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has
failed to find a material solution to meet common requirements
for a mobile ground multi-mode radar capability and may be
missing an opportunity to develop a joint program that meets
the majority of service requirements while reducing unit costs
and saving money. The committee believes that the fiscal
realities demand that the services look for every opportunity
to develop joint programs, reduce costs, and meet valid service
requirements.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, or designee, to provide the
congressional defense committees a classified or unclassified
briefing, not later than December 1, 2013, on the analysis,
evaluation, and decision-making process of the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council with respect to the validation
and approval of separate requirements and acquisition programs
for the Army TPQ-53, the Marine Corps TPS-80, and the Air Force
TPS-78 and TPS-703.
Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General
to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later
than December 1, 2013, an assessment of each of the services'
ground radar programs. This assessment shall include a review
of requirements and capabilities identifying redundancies, if
any, and the degree of redundancy among the programs. The
Comptroller General shall also include an assessment of the
feasibility and acceptability of establishing a joint ground
radar program and an estimate of program cost increases or
decreases should such a joint program be established.
Department of the Navy strike fighter inventories
Throughout the past several years, the committee has
expressed concern that the Navy is facing a sizeable gap in
aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D retire before the
aircraft carrier variant (F-35C) of the Joint Strike Fighter is
available to replace them. In any case, the F/A-18E/F will be a
critical part of the Navy's fleet for the next 25 years,
complementing the Navy's F-35C. The F-35C is expected to reach
initial operational capability in late 2018.
Additionally, the Navy now intends to inspect legacy F/A-
18A-D aircraft periodically above 8,000 flight hours, in
combination with executing a service life extension program
(SLEP) on 150 of those aircraft, in an effort to extend a
portion of the inventory to 10,000 hours. As yet, the Navy does
not have sufficient data to predict the failure rate for
aircraft being inducted into the SLEP. The current SLEP
engineering analysis has not been completed. In addition, the
costs and schedules associated with the Navy's plans remain
unknown. As a result, executing the Navy's plan could
negatively impact the tactical aviation shortfall, as there are
already reports of aircraft backed up at Navy depots awaiting
parts and maintenance. The committee understands that more than
42 percent of the legacy F/A-18A-D aircraft, approximately 260
aircraft, are currently out of service awaiting some form of
maintenance, inspection, or repair.
The committee believes a strong carrier-based fleet is
vital as part of the increased emphasis on the Pacific region.
This emphasis requires the Navy to have a viable fleet of both
F/A-18E/F and F-35C aircraft to avoid creating a risk for the
Navy's future strike fighter force structure.
Ejection seats
The committee understands that aging and heavy operating
tempo have caused metal fatigue and corrosion in legacy
ejection seats. Moreover, the incorporation of helmet-mounted
displays and devices creates a situation for pilots that the
legacy seats were never intended to accommodate during an
ejection event. This leads to increased risks for pilot
survival during high speed ejections.
The committee understands that newer ejection seats can
effectively address these issues, while at the same time
providing simplified maintenance and increasing aircraft
availability. Furthermore, recent seat safety enhancement
features provide for greatly improved safety for aircrew using
current operational helmet-mounted displays, thereby reducing
the possibility of head, neck, and spinal cord injuries.
For these reasons, the committee encourages the Air Force
to evaluate a program or programs to replace the 1970s-designed
ejection seats currently equipping most legacy fighter and
bomber aircraft, paying particular attention to improving crew
safety and reducing operation and support costs.
Enhanced performance round versus special operations science and
technology round
The committee notes that the Army has developed and begun
to field a 5.56mm enhanced performance round (EPR) which has
the potential to demonstrate improved performance against hard
and soft targets, in addition to other small caliber
ammunition. The committee notes that the Marine Corps has begun
testing on the use of the special operations science and
technology (SOST) round which also has an opportunity to
demonstrate similar effects. The committee understands the
Marine Corps is conducting a review and comparison of the EPR
versus the SOST round.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Marine Corps to
prepare a briefing or a report to the committee on the status
and progress of the EPR versus SOST round review no later than
September 1, 2013.
F-35 production rate
The committee believes that the continued development and
funding of all three variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
is critical to maintaining U.S. air dominance. The committee
supported restructuring the program to keep production
remaining flat for the past 4 years to reduce concurrency risk
and allow the program to make additional progress in the
testing program before ramping up production.
The committee notes that the program has been executing
close to the planned testing and development schedule. The
Marine Corps will declare initial operational capability (IOC)
in 2015 with the Block 2B software capability. The Air Force
will declare IOC in 2016 with the Block 2B/3I software
capability, rather than waiting for the Block 3F capability as
previously planned. The Navy will declare IOC in late 2018 with
the Block 3F software capability. Achieving these IOC dates
depend in part on increasing production according to the
current plan.
With the program now achieving most testing milestones, the
committee believes that the Department of Defense should
seriously consider continuing with the current plan to increase
production in fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
F-35 technical issues
In his testimony before the Subcommittee on Airland of the
Senate Committee on Armed Services, the F-35 Program Executive
Officer (PEO) discussed the development issues which present
the greatest technical risks to the program.
Regarding the software, the committee notes that a critical
design review (CDR) is planned which will shed more light on
progress of the Block 3F software against the requirements and
delivery timeline. Block 3F software provides the capability
that will allow all three services to declare full operational
capability. The committee directs the PEO to provide a briefing
to the congressional defense committees on the results of the
CDR within 30 days of its conclusion.
In addition to software, the PEO also highlighted other
known technical risks to the F-35 program, to include the
helmet mounted display system, the tailhook, the fuel dumping
system, and the autonomic logistics information system. The
committee directs the F-35 PEO to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees on the status of the risk and
cost reduction efforts to these four systems within 30 days
from the completion of any major test objective or risk
reduction effort involving these four programs.
Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
In January 2012, the Air Force proposed the retirement of
its RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft. The Secretary of the
Air Force stated the reason for this decision was based on the
operational capability and cost to operate and maintain the
Global Hawk Block 30. Section 154 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239)
required the Air Force to maintain the operational capability
of each RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system
through December 31, 2014.
This committee understands the strategic importance of
high-altitude surveillance and increasing demands for
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) by the
commanders of combatant commands (COCOM) around the world, both
in permissive and non-permissive environments. The Senate
report (S. Rept. 112-173) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (S. 3254) required the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to identify enduring
requirements for persistent ISR, and the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to provide a long-
term investment strategy for meeting that requirement to the
congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees no later than May 2, 2013. The
committee understands that the Department has had some
difficulty in defining the terms of reference for the
analytical effort that has resulted in delaying the report, but
believes the Department of Defense should move expeditiously to
complete these tasks.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
to provide an update on the congressionally directed report
immediately to the congressional defense committees and the
congressional intelligence committees, and the final report on
COCOM peacetime and wartime requirements, and the long-term
investment strategy for meeting those requirements, no later
than February 1, 2014.
Joint high speed vessel
The Navy is procuring the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) to
serve as an intra-theater lift asset. In a prepared statement
to the committee earlier this year, the Chief of Naval
Operations, Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, United States Navy,
talked about the new deployments of JHSVs and Littoral Combat
Ships and said, ``[w]e will use these deployments to integrate
these new, highly adaptable platforms into the fleet and
evaluate the ways we can employ their combination of persistent
forward presence and flexible payload capacity.''
To better understand the Navy's plans for the JHSV fleet,
the committee believes that the Secretary of the Navy should
identify: (1) the Navy's intent for allocating JHSVs among the
combatant commanders; and (2) any overseas basing plan to
support that allocation.
Further, the committee believes the Navy should consider
additional functions or capabilities that the JHSV fleet might
provide. Some of these could include support to counterdrug or
counter piracy operations, command and control for joint task
force operations, to intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance operations.
The committee directs the Secretary to provide a report on
these issues with the submission of the fiscal year 2015 budget
request.
Joint surveillance/target attack radar system modernization
The committee is concerned about the continued long-term
sustainment of the capability provided by the Joint
Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) E-8
aircraft. The aircraft and sensors may need costly upgrades to
keep the system relevant to the operational environment. The
Air Force has completed an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to
evaluate potential replacement platforms to perform the battle
management command and control and ground moving target
indicator (BMCC/GMTI) missions. These missions that support
ground and naval forces are critical.
The AoA recommends as the preferred option a combined
solution of modern business jets, using a fourth generation
sensor system already in development by the Navy and Global
Hawk Block 40 remotely piloted vehicle. The analysis indicates
that this option would offer the potential of significant
lifecycle cost savings and improved sensor capabilities, if the
Air Force could afford the up-front investment costs. Although
the Air Force acknowledges the need for a JSTARS mission area
replacement aircraft, the fiscal year 2014 budget request does
not include a request for funding such an option.
This committee is concerned that delays in commencing a
program to replace and modernize the JSTARS capability could
result in unfulfilled intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance requirements and higher risk to operational
forces. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report that would provide a detailed
description of the Department of Defense plan to modernize the
capability to satisfy the BMCC/GMTI missions. The Secretary is
directed to submit that report no later than 180 days after
enactment of this Act.
Joint Tactical Radio System handheld, manpack, and small form fit
competition and contracting
The committee has long supported and encouraged Army plans
for a full and open competition at full rate production for the
handheld and manpack radios of the Joint Tactical Radio System
(JTRS) program. The advantages to the Army and the taxpayers of
a communications system built upon non-proprietary, open-
architecture technologies acquired through competition are
apparent. The potential savings and technological performance
improvements associated with competition among several tactical
radio manufacturers could be significant over time.
The committee is concerned, however, that a potential plan
to award a 5-year contract to a single vendor will result in an
uncompetitive and smaller tactical radio industrial base. This,
in turn, could lead to the Army becoming entrapped in
subsequent sole-source procurements that forfeit greater
savings and improved technical performance that come with
frequent competition.
Accordingly, the committees directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review
the Army's handheld and manpack radio competition and
contracting plans and provide to the congressional defense
committees an assessment of how they will achieve the
objectives of increased savings and performance through
competition among several vendors over the life of the JTRS
program. The Under Secretary shall submit this assessment not
later than 60 days after enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
Long Range Strike Bomber
The committee is aware that the President, the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Air Force
Chief of Staff have called for the development of a new stealth
bomber as our nation's military posture transitions and focuses
on emerging threats in both the Middle East and the Asia-
Pacific region. A new stealth bomber is essential to deterrence
and anti-access strategies in these regions. A new stealth
bomber will continue to ensure that deterrence remains a viable
tool of our foreign policy by providing the President and
combatant commanders with the ability to hold targets at risk
with a versatile platform that combines range, persistence,
payload, and survivability. A new stealth bomber will be an
indispensable foundation of future U.S. power projection. As
the only new aircraft development program planned for the next
decade, continued development of the new bomber is essential to
maintain U.S. teleological superiority and a highly specialized
workforce.
Modernization of B-1 bomber
The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to report to the
congressional defense committees on efforts to modernize the B-
1 bomber over the life of the airframe. The report shall be due
to the congressional defense committees no later than February
28, 2014.
Modernization of the B-52 Strategic Radar System
The current B-52H Strategic Radar System (SRS) is
approaching the end of its useful life. The Air Force conducted
an Analysis of Alternatives to evaluate potential replacements
for this system. The Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives expressed concern in their
reports accompanying the National Defense Authorization Acts
for Fiscal Year 2013 regarding funding for the Strategic Radar
Replacement (SR2) program. This committee remains concerned
about lack of funding in the fiscal year 2014 budget, which
would allow critical capability gaps, and directs the Secretary
of the Air Force to provide a detailed plan with timeline on
how it will replace the SRS on all B-52Hs.
Paladin integrated management program
The budget request included $260.2 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles and $80.6 million in PE 64854A for the
Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) self-propelled howitzer
program. The committee notes the PIM program will soon be
entering low rate initial production (LRIP). Over the past
several months, the committee notes that the Army has taken
several fact-of-life reductions to the program. The Army
explains that these reductions are due to the extraordinary
fiscal constraints of sequestration and overseas contingency
operations funding shortfalls. The committee further notes that
the Army intends to hold to the program's current schedule
including the procurement of the full complement of the initial
LRIP vehicles while still able to reduce LRIP procurement in
the out-years. The committee fully supports the PIM program and
expects the Army to continue to review the development schedule
for other ways to accelerate the program while retaining cost
and schedule.
Report on the results of the Army voluntary flight demonstration
The committee is aware that the Army is continuing its
evaluation and consideration of the feasibility, affordability,
and advisability of acquiring a new light armed scout
helicopter to replace the current OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. Since
the cancellation in 2011 of the Armed Reconnaissance
Helicopter, the Army has been methodically working through an
assessment of its light armed scout helicopter requirements and
an analysis of alternatives across a wide range of operating
concepts including manned helicopters, unmanned aerial systems,
and manned-unmanned teaming. As part of a broader consideration
of alternatives for what has become the Armed Aerial Scout
(AAS), the Army conducted a voluntary flight demonstration of
commercially available aircraft to refine its requirements
determination process and explore how closely aircraft flying
today compare to the capability of the Kiowa Warrior and could
approach meeting the capabilities the Army has in mind for a
light armed scout replacement. The committee is interested to
learn more about the results of the Army voluntary flight
demonstration and its contribution to the ongoing analysis of
the feasibility, affordability, and advisability of replacing
the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army, or designee, to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by September 30, 2014 that details the
performance metrics demonstrated by each participant. The
report shall also provide an estimate of the costs associated
with the development and testing of each participant's aircraft
for modifications and upgrades necessary to convert such
aircraft to a fully militarized AAS. Finally, the report shall
include the estimated schedule for competition, development,
testing, and qualification of each aircraft overlaid on current
timelines for Kiowa Warrior service life extension, safety
upgrades, and modernization programs.
The committee is aware that information regarding the
performance of participants' aircraft is competition sensitive
and directs that the report shall not disclose their identities
and shall, where appropriate, protect their intellectual
property. The committee will work with the Army to ensure that
such information is adequately protected.
The committee further understands that Kiowa Warrior
service-life, safety, and capability upgrades are necessary
under any potential replacement scenario in order to address
critical near-term operational performance and safety
requirements. The committee supports these Kiowa Warrior
modification efforts to ensure that the Army's current light
armed scout helicopter, that has been proven in combat in Iraq
and Afghanistan, is ready and available for the 10-20 years it
may take to field a replacement should an alternative prove
feasible and affordable.
Ship Modernization, Operations and Sustainment Fund
Section 8105 of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2013 (Public Law 113-6) established the Ship
Modernization, Operations and Sustainment Fund, and
appropriated more than $2.4 billion to the Fund. The Fund was
intended to prevent the premature retirement of seven cruisers
and two dock landing ships during fiscal years 2013 and 2014.
This reflected a concern with the proposed retirement plan that
the plan: (1) was disconnected from the defense strategy; (2)
created future unaffordable shipbuilding requirements; and (3)
would exacerbate force structure shortfalls that negatively
impact the Department's ability to meet combatant commander
(COCOM) requirements.
The Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for
Construction of Naval Vessels for fiscal year 2014, date May
10, 2013, proposes to retire these cruisers and amphibious
ships during fiscal year 2015, resulting in a fleet of 270
ships, the smallest fleet since 1917. The Navy is taking this
action despite the fact that keeping these vessels operating
until the end of 2014 will cost, according to the Navy, $931.1
million. The committee believes that the Navy should use the
remaining resources in the Fund to sustain all of these ships.
Available funds would permit the Navy to operate the ships
during most of the period future-years defense program and
would permit the Navy and Congress to continue evaluating
options for modernizing and retaining these vessels until the
end of their expected service lives.
Small diameter bomb
The Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) program fields a 250-pound
bomb that provides low-cost, precision strike capability and is
designed to increase weapon's loads of fighters, bombers, and
unmanned aerial systems.
The first version of SDB, SDB-I, is an all-weather munition
for which the requirements are defeating stationary targets.
SDB-1 uses global positioning system (GPS) and inertial
navigation system (INS) data to achieve the required precision.
This munition achieved initial operating capability in late
2006.
The second version of SDB, SDB-II, would add a tri-mode
seeker (radar, infrared, and semi-active laser) to the INS and
GPS guidance of the original SDB-I. These sensors are intended
to provide automatic target recognition features for striking
mobile targets, such as tanks, vehicles, and mobile command
posts.
The Air Force plans to start low rate initial production of
SDB-II in 2014. Earlier this year, SDB-II flight test program
was temporarily suspended due to a flight test failure, but has
since resumed. Any further delays could affect the timing of
Milestone C, currently scheduled for August 2013, and could
cause a delay in having required assets available to outfit an
F-15E squadron in late 2016.
The committee is aware that there is a possible
modification to the SDB-I that would add a semi-active laser
(SAL) sensor. This might provide some, but not all, of the
potential SDB-II capability against mobile targets. The Air
Force may want to consider this or other options if there were
additional flight testing difficulties that would cast doubt on
the success of the SDB-II program.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to brief the congressional defense committees on the
status of the entire SDB program no later than 90 days after
enactment of this Act. The briefing should include current
status of SDB-II test program, potential gaps in capabilities
if SDB-II testing were to be delayed, examination of the mix of
SDB-1 and SDB-II weapon capabilities and costs, and recommended
way ahead for SDB procurement.
UH-1N replacement strategy
The committee is aware that the Air Force has a long-
standing need to replace its aging UH-1N helicopter fleet. The
current UH-1N fleet provides the Air Force with a capability to
provide security for Global Strike Command operations and to
ensure continuity of government and continuity of operations in
the National Capital Region. The committee acknowledges that
the Air Force has had to make difficult decisions on a
replacement utility helicopter, but believes that the Air Force
should articulate a strategy for modernizing the capability
provided by these helicopters.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
provide the congressional defense committees a report, not
later than February 1, 2014, that assesses and categorizes the
Air Force's utility helicopter capabilities to meet the full
range of nuclear security and continuity of government
requirements and describes the Air Force's strategy towards
meeting such requirements.
UH-72 light utility helicopter
The budget request included $96.2 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA), for the procurement of 10 UH-72 light
utility helicopters. According to the Army this is the final
year of UH-72 purchases, truncating the total program buy at
315 aircraft instead of the originally planned 346. The
committee notes that even though this ends production short of
the original plan, the final buy fully meets the documented UH-
72 requirements of the Army National Guard.
The committee is concerned that the Army's decision may
have an impact on the UH-72 industrial base that increases
risks over time for the support of its fielded fleet of 315
aircraft. Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology to provide the congressional defense committees with
an assessment of the impact of production termination on the
UH-72 industrial base and support for the fielded fleet. The
Secretary's assessment should address, but not be limited to,
the potential impacts on the parts supply chain including
mission modules, the availability of maintenance services, and
how the replacement of aircraft will be managed in the event of
any future losses. The Secretary shall submit this assessment
not later than 60 days after enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
Uninterruptable power supply
The committee is aware of a funding shortfall associated
with procurement of the Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS)
required for the new United States Strategic Command
Replacement Facility. The committee also notes the UPS must be
delivered no later than July 2014 to avoid significant
construction delays and/or contract penalties.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees no
later than September 30, 2013, identifying specific actions the
Air Force is taking to ensure the UPS is delivered by the
construction need date.
Use of commercially available systems to support certain Navy
requirements
The Navy faces growing anti-access and area denial threats
around the world, specifically including Iranian small boat
swarm threats in the Arabian Gulf and in the Strait of Hormuz.
In addition to this reality of increasing threats, the Navy
faces tightening resources from implementation of the Budget
Control Act (Public Law 112-25). The committee believes that
the Navy, whenever possible, should seek to make maximum use of
commercially available systems to fill capability gaps in the
most affordable manner. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2015
budget request, including a classified annex as necessary, that
would identify: (1) any gaps in Department of the Navy's
capability to deal with anti-access and area denial threats;
(2) if there are gaps, whether those gaps are covered by other
Department of Defense forces or systems; (3) if there are gaps,
to what extent there may be commercially available systems to
fill the capability gaps; (4) whether fielding commercially
available systems could potentially avoid lengthy and costly
research and development programs; and (5) whether commercially
available systems are free from cyber threats.
War readiness engine shortfall
The committee understands that the Air Force faces a
shortfall of useable engines for the F-15 and F-16 fleets as
compared to the war readiness engine objective. Given that the
Air Force will continue to rely on the F-15 and F-16 well into
the foreseeable future, maintaining the readiness of these
fleets is imperative. The committee urges the Secretary of the
Air Force to include sufficient resources in future budgets for
engines to avoid degrading readiness.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation
activities at the levels identified in section 4201 of division
D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Conventional Prompt Global Strike program (sec. 211)
The committee is supportive of the Conventional Prompt
Global Strike (CPGS) program and realizes that efforts in
developing intermediate- and long-range hypersonic boost-glide
systems have the potential to provide significant military
capability. However, the committee is concerned that the
strategic policy issues regarding submarine-launched systems
have not been considered adequately. The committee recommends a
provision that would prohibit the Department of Defense (DOD)
from executing any funds in PE 64165D8Z related to the
development of a submarine-launched CPGS capability until 60
days after the Department delivers to the congressional defense
committees a report that addresses the policy considerations
concerning the ambiguity problems regarding the launch of CPGS
missiles from submarine platforms.
The CPGS program is currently an event-driven technology
development and demonstration program, and the committee
recognizes that in the current budget environment, DOD needs to
take a system-of-systems approach to develop an integrated
strategic plan that addresses the cost-benefit analyses of
various launch approaches. The Director of Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation (CAPE) shall conduct a study, to include the
costs and benefits of maritime and ground surface versus sub-
surface launched CPGS systems. While the committee recognizes
that significant technical development remains, it is not too
early to begin considering the fiscal implications of the
various launch mechanisms, including integration costs. The
committee notes that Section 1071 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239)
required a report on the ability of national test and
evaluation capabilities to support the maturation of hypersonic
technologies for future defense systems development. This
earlier report effort is synergistic with the CAPE report. The
CAPE report shall be submitted to the congressional defense
committees not later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Logistics and Technology to report to the
congressional defense committees within 90 days after the
enactment of this Act on whether the CPGS activity should be
managed under the Joint Technology Office on Hypersonics under
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering. The committee feels that the synergies and
efficiencies under this office could benefit the broader boost-
glide and air-breathing hypersonics community.
Modification of requirements on biennial strategic plan for the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (sec. 212)
The committee recommends a provision that would make some
modifications to the biennial strategic plan requirement for
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The
modifications seek to make the plan more useful and assign
responsibility to the Director of DARPA versus the Secretary of
Defense.
Extension of authority for program to award prizes for advanced
technology achievements (sec. 213)
The committee recommends a provision, based upon a
Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would extend
through September 30, 2017, the authority for the Secretary of
Defense to carry out programs to award cash prizes in
recognition of outstanding achievements in scientific and
technical research and development.
Five-year extension of pilot program to include technology protection
features during research and development of certain defense
systems (sec. 214)
The committee recommends a provision, based upon a
Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would extend
for an additional 5 years, to October 1, 2020, the pilot
program addressing Defense Exportability Features to be
incorporated in export versions of major defense equipment.
Extension of mechanisms to provide funds for defense laboratories for
research and development of technologies for military missions
(sec. 215)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority of section 219(c) of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law
(110-417) until September 30, 2020. Section 219 allows the
Department of Defense laboratories to use up to 3 percent of
their funds for internal competitive research and development,
workforce development, and limited laboratory revitalization
activities.
Sustainment or replacement of Blue Devil Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance System (sec. 216)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to procure the currently deployed
Blue Devil intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
aircraft or to develop a plan to replace that system with a
comparable or improved one.
The leases for the existing Blue Devil system aircraft,
deployed in Afghanistan, will expire in the second quarter of
fiscal year 2014. These manned aircraft are equipped with wide-
area motion-imagery (WAMI) cameras, which work in conjunction
with a ground-based signals intelligence (SIGINT) network that
detects and locates specific targets with high precision. These
SIGINT identifications and locations are used to cue analysts
to spot and track the targets through the motion imagery
sensor. Assessments of the performance of this system in
theater have been outstanding, and an operations research study
conducted by the Air Force demonstrated that a system based on
a longer-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that carries
both the imagery and SIGINT capabilities would be even more
flexible and effective.
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), through the Air
Force Big Safari program office, has already fielded a so-
called near vertical direction finding (NVDF) SIGINT sensor on
an airborne platform that replicates the capabilities of the
ground-based SIGINT system used in Blue Devil. SOCOM is
procuring a podded version of this sensor for deployment on
Reaper UAVs. SOCOM has also already paired this NVDF system
with a motion imagery camera, but that camera is a traditional
full-motion video (FMV) camera with a narrow field of view
rather than a WAMI system. NVDF systems can simultaneously
detect and locate a very large number of emitters in its field
of view. An FMV camera, however, can only track one target at a
time because of its limited area coverage. A WAMI camera, in
contrast, could track many targets simultaneously, which
matches the capability of NVDF sensors.
SOCOM is in discussions with the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) on partnering to transition DARPA's
Wide Area Network Detection (WAND) technology, which combines
NVDF and WAMI and provides technology to track targets
automatically.
The Air Force has already fielded the DARPA-developed WAMI
system on the Reaper UAV called Gorgon Stare Increment 2, and
has funded the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln
Laboratory to develop NVDF technology under the name Blue Moon.
The Gorgon Stare pods are very large and weigh 1,500 pounds.
However, the Blue Moon system has not been integrated with
Gorgon Stare or the Reaper and has performance limitations
compared to the SOCOM-fielded NVDF system.
The provision the committee recommends would require the
Department of Defense to integrate and rationalize all these
disparate activities to create an important capability for a
recognized requirement.
The Air Force must work with SOCOM and DARPA to realize
these objectives. The Air Force can procure more of the mature
NVDF capability it has fielded for SOCOM, and integrate that
with its fielded Gorgon Stare WAMI systems on the Reaper.
DARPA's WAND technology can enhance the performance of this
integrated capability. Likewise, the Blue Moon NVDF technology
has important capabilities that are lacking in the SOCOM-
fielded NVDF system that should be incorporated as soon as
possible. This technology needs to be transitioned to industry
broadly for future competitions to improve NVDF performance.
For the future, NVDF technology must be improved to deal with
encryption-related target identification limitations and next-
generation signal types. Likewise, WAMI systems need to be
dramatically reduced in size, weight, and power requirements;
industry has already developed multiple competitive solutions.
To implement this direction, the committee recommends an
increase of $15.0 million to the budget request of $37.8
million in PE 35206F for Airborne Reconnaissance Systems. This
increase is partially offset by a reduction of $2.5 million to
the request, which reflects the difference between the amount
reflected in the budget tables provided to Congress and the
amount contained in the Military Intelligence Program
justification volume.
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs
Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 231)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress concerning homeland ballistic missile
defense, and require the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the
advantages and disadvantages of a range of potential future
options for enhancing homeland ballistic missile defense,
including the possible deployment of a missile defense
interceptor site on the East Coast, and the possible deployment
of an additional sensor on the East Coast. The provision would
require the Secretary to submit a report on the evaluation,
including such findings, conclusions, and recommendations as
the Secretary considers appropriate, for potential future
options for homeland ballistic missile defense.
The United States currently has an operational homeland
ballistic missile defense system, the Ground-based Midcourse
Defense (GMD) system, with 30 Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs)
deployed in Alaska and California. In appearances before the
committee during 2013, numerous senior military leaders
testified that they are confident in the ability of the current
GMD system to protect the entire United States, including the
East Coast, from limited ballistic missile attacks from North
Korea and Iran. The committee agrees with the Department of
Defense that this homeland missile defense capability can and
should be improved.
The committee notes that, on March 15, Secretary of Defense
Chuck Hagel announced a series of steps planned to enhance
homeland ballistic missile defense, as part of the homeland
missile defense hedge strategy, to stay ahead of the evolving
long-range missile threat from North Korea and Iran. These
steps include: the deployment of an additional 14 GBIs at Fort
Greely, Alaska--a nearly 50 percent increase--by 2017; the
deployment of a second AN/TPY-2 missile defense radar in Japan;
the evaluation of potential sites in the United States for
possible future deployment of a missile defense interceptor
site; and the establishment of a new common kill vehicle
technology development program.
One element of the decision announced by Secretary Hagel
was the cancelation of the previous plan to develop the
Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIB interceptor missile for
Phase 4 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile
defense. Twenty-four SM-3 IIB missiles had originally been
intended for deployment at an Aegis Ashore interceptor site in
Poland in 2020, to augment the GMD system in defending the
United States from possible future long-range Iranian missiles.
However, congressional funding reductions and technical
challenges had delayed the program beyond 2022, with
significant uncertainties about its ability to accomplish the
intended mission. Secretary Hagel made clear that the U.S.
commitment to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) missile
defense ``remains ironclad,'' including the planned Aegis
Ashore interceptor site deployments in Romania in 2015 and
Poland in 2018. According to Secretary Hagel, these deployments
``will still be able to provide coverage of all European NATO
territory as planned by 2018.''
As Secretary Hagel and other Department of Defense
officials explained, deploying the additional 14 GBIs in Alaska
would provide additional homeland defense at least 5 years
sooner against both North Korea and Iran, and at far less cost
than the SM-3 IIB program. Funds from the canceled SM-3 IIB
program were redirected for the deployment of the additional 14
GBIs and for the new common kill vehicle technology development
program. They also explained that, before the 14 additional
GBIs are deployed, the GMD system would have to be tested and
demonstrated successfully in an intercept test, to provide
confidence that the system would work as intended.
This ``fly before you buy'' commitment is needed to
demonstrate the successful correction of the problem that
caused a GMD flight test failure in December 2010 with the
Capability Enhancement-II (CE-II) kill vehicle. The Government
Accountability Office estimates that correcting this problem
and demonstrating its success in flight tests will cost more
than $1.2 billion and has caused program delays of several
years. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has halted all
assembly, integration, manufacture, and refurbishment of GBIs
with CE-II kill vehicles until the CE-II correction is
successfully demonstrated in flight testing, including an
intercept flight test planned for early 2014. The committee
commends MDA for this ``fly before you buy'' approach, and
notes that further procurement of GBIs, planned to replace the
14 GBIs that will be deployed by 2017, would also depend upon
successful demonstration that the CE-II kill vehicle will work
as intended. The committee expects the GBI industry team to
show the same level of commitment to demonstrating success in
correcting the CE-II problems.
In testimony before the committee, Vice Admiral James
Syring, the Director of MDA, explained that improvements to the
GMD ``kill chain,'' particularly in sensors, discrimination,
and kill assessment, would provide an ``absolutely needed
benefit'' that would be ``equally important to interceptors''
in staying ahead of the evolving threat from North Korea and
Iran. The committee strongly supports Admiral Syring's priority
to improving the overall performance and effectiveness of the
GMD system, and notes that these enhancements are intended to
be cost-effective, timely, and affordable. Consequently, the
committee directs the Director of MDA to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees, not later than March 1,
2014, explaining the specific GMD kill chain enhancements that
would be most beneficial to overall GMD effectiveness,
including any improvements in GBI reliability and performance,
and how and when MDA proposes to achieve those enhancements.
Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 232)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress concerning the importance of regional
ballistic missile defense and would require the Secretary of
Defense to prepare a report on the status and progress of
efforts to enhance regional ballistic missile defense
capabilities.
The committee notes that regional ballistic missile
defenses provide a critical force protection capability for
forward deployed U.S. forces, as well as for allies and
partners, against missile threats from countries such as North
Korea and Iran. North Korea's public threats in the spring of
2013 to use ballistic missiles against South Korea, Japan, and
Guam served as a stark reminder of the importance of regional
missile defenses and the need to expand and improve U.S.
regional missile defense capabilities.
Regional missile defenses are a high priority for
geographic combatant commanders. Lieutenant General Richard P.
Formica, USA, Commander of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense
Command, and Commander of the Joint Functional Component
Command for Integrated Missile Defense, under U.S. Strategic
Command, testified in May 2013 that the Global Ballistic
Missile Defense Assessment for 2012 concluded that the
operational risk for regional missile defenses is higher than
the homeland missile defense risk. The Department of Defense is
pursuing increased regional missile defense capabilities, such
as the European Phased Adaptive Approach and similar approaches
tailored to other regions, including cooperation with allies
and partners.
The committee supports the continued development, testing,
and deployment of regional missile defense capabilities such as
the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system and its associated
Standard Missile-3 interceptors, and the Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense systems. The committee notes that missile defense
tests over the last year have demonstrated increasing
capability for these systems, including the capability to
launch on remote sensor data.
Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that it is in the national security interest
of the United States to pursue efforts at missile defense
cooperation with Russia that would enhance the security of the
United States, its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
allies, and Russia, particularly against missile threats from
Iran.
The provision states that such cooperation should not ``in
any way limit United States'' or NATO's missile defense
capabilities,'' and that the United States should not provide
Russia with sensitive information that would compromise United
States national security, including hit-to-kill technology and
interceptor telemetry. It also states that such cooperation
should be pursued in a manner that ensures that classified U.S.
information is appropriately safeguarded and protected from
unauthorized disclosure.
In testimony to the committee on May 9, 2013, Madelyn
Creedon, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global
Strategic Affairs, stated that the United States ``continues to
seek cooperation with Russia on missile defense, both
bilaterally and with our allies, through the NATO-Russia
Council. We are pursuing this cooperation because it would be
in the security interest of all parties and could strengthen
the defensive capabilities of both NATO and Russia.'' She also
testified that the ``United States has pursued missile defense
cooperation with Russia with the clear understanding that we
will not accept constraints on our missile defense systems, we
will implement the EPAA [European Phased Adaptive Approach],
and Russia will not have command and control over NATO
ballistic missile defense efforts.''
The committee notes that the NATO Chicago Summit statement
of May 20, 2012, reiterates NATO's commitment to missile
defense cooperation with Russia, ``such as the recent [NATO-
Russia Council] Theatre Missile Defense Exercise,'' in order to
``enhance European security.'' The statement also says, ``we
look forward to establishing the proposed joint NATO-Russia
Missile Data Fusion Centre and the joint Planning Operations
Centre to cooperate on missile defense. We propose to develop a
transparency regime based upon a regular exchange of
information about current respective missile defense
capabilities of NATO and Russia.''
Additional missile defense radar for the protection of the United
States homeland (sec. 234)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Missile Defense Agency to deploy an X-band radar, or comparable
sensor, at a location optimized to support the defense of the
United States homeland against long-range ballistic missile
threats. The provision would also authorize $30.0 million for
the Missile Defense Agency for the initial costs toward
deployment of the radar.
The committee notes that the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency and the Commander of the Joint Functional
Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense have indicated
that their highest future investment priority for homeland
ballistic missile defense is the enhancement of sensor
capabilities that will improve threat discrimination and kill
assessment, and thus permit more effective defense. This
provision would address that future investment priority.
The committee understands that the Missile Defense Agency
has expressed the importance of enhanced sensor capabilities
relative to both North Korea and Iran.
The committee believes that the additional sensor
capability required by this provision should optimize the
defense of the entire United States homeland against long-range
ballistic missile threats from both North Korea and Iran.
Evaluation of options for future ballistic missile defense sensor
architectures (sec. 235)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct an evaluation of options and
alternatives for future ballistic missile defense sensor
architectures in order to enhance U.S. ballistic missile
defense capabilities in a cost-effective, operationally
effective, timely, and affordable manner. The provision would
also require the Secretary to submit a report to Congress with
the results of the evaluation, including such findings,
conclusions, and recommendations as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
terminated the program to develop the Precision Tracking Space
System (PTSS) because it concluded the acquisition risk and the
cost were too high and that it would not be affordable. PTSS
was intended to provide persistent space-based tracking of
regional and long-range ballistic missiles from nations such as
North Korea and Iran, particularly to permit enhanced defense
against large regional missile raids. The committee notes that
the military still has a need for improved tracking and
targeting of ballistic missiles. It is not yet clear how DOD
intends to meet the need for enhanced sensor coverage in the
absence of PTSS. The committee expects DOD to take advantage of
the lessons learned from PTSS in its evaluation of options for
future sensor architectures.
In testimony before this committee, a number of witnesses,
including Vice Admiral James Syring, the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency, testified that enhancing our missile
defense sensor system is a key near-term priority for improving
our homeland and regional missile defense capability,
particularly for improving discrimination and kill assessment
of missile threats.
Prohibition on the use of funds for the MEADS program (sec. 236)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2014 Department of
Defense funds for the Medium Extended Air Defense System.
Subtitle D--Reports and Other Matters
Annual Comptroller General of the United States report on the
acquisition program for the VXX Presidential Helicopter (sec.
251)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General to produce an annual report on the VXX
presidential helicopter program until the program enters full
rate production or is cancelled, whichever comes first.
Budget Items
Army
Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin project
The budget request included $23.3 million across a number
of program elements for the development of a new blast test
manikin that would respond in a biofidelic manner when exposed
to under-body blast conditions experienced by mounted soldiers.
The committee notes that the development of such a test
manikin would significantly improve the Department's ability to
measure the projected injuries that could be caused by various
blast events caused by improvised explosive devices. Such
information would lead to improved survivability of ground
combat vehicles. Due to various programmatic issues, the
program is facing a budget shortfall that would lead to a
schedule slip that would adversely impact the timeliness of
critical design data for ground combat vehicles.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to PE
62618A for the Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin project.
Long endurance multi-intelligence vehicle
The budget request included $29.0 million in PE 35205A for
contract close-out for the now-terminated long endurance multi-
intelligence vehicle. The committee notes that the amount
required for termination costs has not been determined and
should be covered by prior years' appropriations. The committee
recommends no funding for this activity in fiscal year 2014.
General Fund Enterprise Business Systems
The budget request included $17.3 million in PE 64882A for
General Fund Enterprise Business Systems (GFEBS). The committee
notes that funds for the development of a classified module for
GFEBS were provided in a prior year. The committee recommends a
decrease of $17.1 million in PE 64882A for GFEBS.
Internet mapping
The budget request included $33.9 million in PE 65803A for
Technical Information Activities. Cyberspace is a vast new
operational domain that has extensive and varied topography. As
the committee emphasized in its report (S. Rept. 112-173)
accompanying S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), charting this new
terrain is as fundamental to operations in cyberspace as maps
of physical terrain have always been to military campaigns.
Despite the obvious need, attempts to map the Internet so
far have been very modest. The Internet has appeared to be too
complex, too large in scale, and experiencing changes too
rapidly. However, the committee is persuaded that commercial
technology and data sources are now available to capture the
necessary detail at the required speed and volume.
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence understands the need for a dynamic, comprehensive
Internet mapping capability, and is working with the Air Force
Research Laboratory to fund pilot projects to demonstrate the
potential of commercial technology and data sources. The Army's
Geospatial Center under the Engineer Research and Development
Center has also initiated research and development to map this
21st century terrain.
The committee recommends authorization of an increase of
$5.0 million in PE 65803A for the Army Geospatial Enterprise
project to enhance and expand its Internet mapping research.
Navy
Offensive anti-surface warfare weapon development
The budget request included $136.0 million in PE 64786N for
developing an offensive anti-surface warfare (OASuW) weapon.
This follows on an enacted funding level of $86.8 million in
fiscal year 2013. The Navy hopes to use these funds to develop
an OASuW weapon system or systems solution that can be launched
from the air or from surface vessels against hostile surface
targets. These efforts were largely in response to an urgent
operational need statement (UONS) seeking immediate capability.
In fiscal year 2013, the Navy had planned to release a
request for proposal, award one or more competitive prototyping
contracts, and establish a government program office team. The
Navy also had planned to issue a contract for $31.5 million for
an accelerated development effort to field an interim OASuW
capability in April 2013. That contract effort has since been
suspended due to changing priorities within the Navy, and some
disagreement about the validity of the UONS that initiated the
effort. The budget exhibits indicate that the funds instead
would be used to mature technologies applicable to an OASuW
program.
In fiscal year 2014, the Navy planned to spend the year
preparing for a milestone A acquisition decision that would not
occur until at least the first quarter of fiscal year 2015. In
fiscal year 2015, the Navy budget exhibits indicate that the
Navy will be conducting competitive prototyping if required
under new technology development contracts awarded in fiscal
year 2015. It is clear to the committee that the Navy intends
to conduct no such competitive prototyping, but will instead
try to transition a developmental effort from the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) into a program of
record.
The committee fails to see the need to invest so much in a
program for which the urgency of the UONS is now in doubt, and
certainly not to down select prematurely to a single program
responding to a near-term requirement that would not deliver
capability in the near term.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0
million in PE 64786N. The committee believes it would be
prudent to continue government support activities anticipating
a successful milestone A graduation in fiscal year 2015, but
that the Navy should be able to do this with $36.0 million in
fiscal year 2014, an increase of roughly 39 percent above the
fiscal year 2013 effort that was not related to the cancelled
accelerated development program.
The committee further expects the Navy to present a plan
that: (1) pursues a more competitive approach; and (2) yields a
program proceeding to a technology readiness level 6 before
deciding on a particular technical solution.
LHA-8 design effort
The budget request included $155.3 million in PE 64567N for
various ship design and research and development efforts,
including $30.8 million for the next amphibious assault ship,
LHA-8. Within the $30.8 million, $14.5 million is for LHA-8
ship design. Navy LHA-8 program development and design
activities have involved two shipyards, among other
contractors. The Navy intends to begin procurement funding for
LHA-8 in fiscal year 2015.
Repeated Navy shipbuilding programs have shown that failing
to complete a ship's design before starting construction
inevitably leads to cost growth and schedule delays. The
committee believes that the Navy should invest more than it is
currently planning to invest in maturing the design of LHA-8
before starting construction activities.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million in PE 64567N for maturing the LHA-8 design.
Marine personnel carrier
The budget request included $20.9 million in PE 26623M for
the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC). The committee notes that
the Marine Corps has deferred acquisition of the MPC until
after it meets more urgent requirements for a new amphibious
combat vehicle and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. The
committee further notes that there are prior-year funds
available to continue any MPC-related requirements analysis and
determination or technology studies until a decision is made
regarding the sequencing and availability of resources for this
capability. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of
$20.9 million in PE 26623M for the MPC.
Air Force
Operationally Responsive Space
The fiscal year 2014 budget requested no funding for the
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) rejected the proposed termination of the ORS Office and
required its location be separate and distinct from the
headquarters of the Air Force Space and Missile System Center
while reporting to the Director of the Center. Congress awaits
the reports required from the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) on how the
Department of Defense (DOD) will implement the legislation and
move ORS concepts into space acquisition programs. Most if not
all of the concepts championed by the ORS office such as low
cost launch, disaggregation, and common bus structures are now
being embraced by DOD in times of fiscal constraint. The
committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to PE 64857F
to continue the operations of the ORS office and work on a low
cost weather satellite as was briefed to the congressional
defense committees.
Tactical data networks enterprise
The budget request for tactical data networks enterprise
included $51.5 million in PE 64281F, including $21.4 million
for airborne networking enterprise.
Only $6.2 million of the amount for airborne networking
enterprise is explained anywhere in the unclassified or
classified budget documentation. Therefore, the committee
recommends a reduction of $15.2 million in PE 64281F.
Tactical exploitation of national capabilities
The budget request included $89.8 million in PE 27247F for
the tactical exploitation of national capabilities (TENCAP)
program. Included within this amount is $48.0 million to
develop a communications pod for F-15 fighters to enable 5th
generation and 4th generation fighters to communicate with one
another. The total also includes $28.8 million to procure
advanced sensors and components for installation on these
communications pods.
The committee appreciates the fact that elements of the Air
Force are finally responding to the serious and embarrassing
problem that the 5th generation fighters (the F-22 and the F-
35) cannot communicate with one another or with the 4th
generation fighters. However, there are now multiple
initiatives underway in the Air Force that are not coordinated
or well-planned. In addition, there is no justification for
pursuing fighter data link developments in the TENCAP program,
especially since this initiative will not address the problem
of relaying national-level intelligence information to the
fighters or relaying tactical information from the fighters to
national-level systems.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $76.8
million.
Joint surveillance/target attack radar system
The budget request included $57.5 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the E-8 modifications
program and $13.2 million in PE 27581F within Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for Joint
Surveillance/Target Attack Radar Systems (JSTARS). The level of
the RDT&E request reflects a reduction of $11.0 million from
the enacted level of $24.2 million in fiscal year 2013, largely
due to the planned retirement of the T-3 aircraft that has been
a dedicated testing and development platform for the JSTARS
program.
Although there have certainly been reductions in current
development activities, that does not mean that all development
and integration activities are over. Losing the dedicated
testing platform is also troublesome because the Air Force has
decided it cannot afford to modernize the JSTARS capability by
fielding a new platform. That means that the Air Force will be
relying on the 16 operational JSTARS aircraft and 11 Global
Hawk Block 40 aircraft to provide all of the synthetic aperture
radar (SAR) and ground moving target indicator (GMTI) support
for ground force operations for the foreseeable future. Since
the peacetime demand for these SAR and GMTI services is so
high, retiring the T-3 aircraft will mean that operational
aircraft would have to be diverted from other important tasks
to support testing.
Therefore, to avoid this situation, the committee
recommends an increase of $9.9 million in PE 27581F for RDT&E
to sustain T-3 operations during fiscal year 2014.
Air Force Applications Software Assurance Center of Excellence
The budget request included $90.2 million in PE 33140F for
the Information Systems Security Program.
The committee has stressed for several years that the
cybersecurity problem is largely due to vulnerabilities in the
software controlling computing devices. The Air Force
established the Application Software Assurance Center of
Excellence (ASACOE) in 2007 in response to a serious breach
that illuminated the software vulnerability problem in the Air
Force and across the whole Department of Defense (DOD). Despite
the seriousness of the problem, however, the Air Force has
failed to provide the ASACOE with adequate funding. While
funding for the ASACOE's government personnel is included in
annual budget requests, funds for contractor support, bulk
licenses for code analysis tools, and other expenses necessary
to carry out the Center's mission are not budgeted, forcing the
Center to live precariously on periodic fund transfers from
other sources.
Nonetheless, despite this handicap, the ASACOE has earned a
reputation for effectiveness and lasting impacts in improving
the security of many applications and acquisition programs, in
the Air Force and across DOD. In a report to Congress in July
2011, the Secretary of the Air Force stated that ``the
capabilities demonstrated by ASACOE are integral to the
technical tool box'' that DOD will use to implement its Supply
Chain Risk Management strategy.
A report to Congress in October 2011 from the Secretary of
Defense on a strategy for assuring the security of DOD software
and software-based applications listed the ASACOE and the
National Security Agency's Center for Assured Software as
organizations that would be leveraged to implement DOD's
Trusted Systems and Networks strategy. The report further
stated that an internal DOD study concluded that software
vulnerability detection should be ``organized centrally'' to
assure ``a consistent response, coherent direction, and
comprehensive coverage'' at least until software assurance
expertise and resources are developed and diffused across the
Department. The committee believes that the ASACOE could
significantly contribute to the implementation of section 933
of the National Defense Authorization of Fiscal Year 2013
(Public Law 112-239).
The mission of ASACOE is to educate, train, equip, and
assist program management offices to achieve security in
software developments and acquisitions. It provides these
services through its expertise in software assurance
requirements, design, standards, best practices, technology and
tools for code analysis, penetration testing, training, and
remediation.
The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in PE
33140F to enable the ASACOE to fulfill this mission. These
funds will allow ASACOE to exercise the option year on its
current contract. The committee urges the Air Force to
establish a regular funding line in future budget requests for
contractor support and bulk license procurement, and a plan for
assessment and remediation of critical software systems.
Defense-wide
National Defense Education Program
The budget request included $84.3 million in PE 61120D8Z
for the National Defense Education Program (NDEP) that funds
three activities related to Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) education: (1) Science, Mathematics, and
Research for Transformation (SMART) scholarship program; (2)
National Security Science and Engineering Faculty Fellowship
(NSSEFF); and (3) pre-kindergarten through 12th grade (PK-12)
STEM.
In the fiscal year 2014 President's budget request, the
administration consolidated most STEM programs across the
government, including the Department of Defense (DOD), to the
Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and
the Smithsonian Institution. While the consolidation was well-
intended to eliminate unnecessary duplication of activities in
this area across hundreds of programs, little analytical effort
appeared to be expended to determine which exact programs
should be transferred. In the case of DOD, the PK-12 program
was terminated with much of the funding transferred to NSSEFF.
Given that DOD has a vested interest in building a foundation
with PK-12 activities to motivate and encourage children to
pursue STEM careers for national security purposes, the
committee directs that $10.0 million in this PE be transferred
from NSSEFF back to PK-12 activities that have participation by
DOD laboratories and directly benefit the children of DOD
families.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to report to the congressional defense committees on
DOD execution of the NDEP no later than 180 days after
enactment of this Act. The report will include an overall
assessment of the outcomes of the NDEP program; a historic and
projected examination of SMART, NSSEFF, and PK-12 STEM funding
levels; a comparison of NDEP to other federal government funded
STEM education programs; and any recommendations on improving
program execution.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory
The budget request included $46.9 million in PE 62234D8Z
for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln
Laboratory, an increase of $10.0 million from the fiscal year
2013 budget request.
The committee believes the increase is unjustified and
recommends a decrease of $5.0 million.
Applied research for the advancement of science and technology
priorities
The budget request included $45.0 million in PE 62251D8Z
for applied research for the advancement of science and
technology (S&T) priorities. This program element was newly
established to fund key research opportunities identified by
the S&T Priority Steering Councils.
The committee believes that this funding is more
appropriate in the services' S&T budgets and recommends a
decrease of $15.0 million.
Automated software code analysis tool development
The budget request included $18.9 million in PE 62668D8Z
for Cyber Security Research, and $19.7 million in PE 63668D8Z
for Cyber Security Advanced Research.
The Assuring Effective Missions projects in these two
program elements duplicate research that the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency is conducting under the Plan X
program. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease to the
request of $2.0 million and $3.0 million in PE 62668D8Z and PE
63668D8Z, respectively.
In two National Defense Authorization Acts, the committee
included provisions requiring the Department of Defense (DOD)
to take concrete steps to improve the security of the software
that is the target of the cyber attacks that DOD suffers
relentlessly. In the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), Congress established
mandatory requirements for the use of automated code analysis
tools in the development and testing of software for DOD
systems. The committee's understanding was that DOD officials
agreed that the use of such tools is critically important to
cybersecurity.
The most capable tools currently available are built by
commercial companies with little to no government investment.
These tools have progressed in performance, but the committee
believes that DOD should be investing in improved tools to
achieve fewer false positives and negatives in identifying
defects and vulnerabilities. The committee also believes that
DOD should be investing in so-called smart fuzzing tools to
identify exploitable vulnerabilities in software. Such tools
are used routinely and very effectively in the intelligence
community, but not so far by the DOD acquisition community.
The committee recommends authorization of $2.0 million and
$3.0 million in PE 62668D8Z and PE 63668D8Z, respectively, to
develop automated code analysis tools, including fuzzing tools.
The committee urges the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering to include funds for this purpose in
future budget requests.
Counter terrorism, counter-insurgency, and the exploitation of human
terrain in conflict
The budget request terminated the Human Social Culture
Behavior (HSCB) program. The fiscal year 2013 budget request
had $6.8 million in PE 62670D8Z (HSCB Modeling Applied
Research), $8.2 million in PE 63670D8Z (HSCB Advanced
Development), and $5.1 million in PE 64670D8Z (HSCB Modeling
Research and Engineering).
The committee notes that the list of priority missions of
the U.S. armed forces released in the fiscal year 2014 budget
request had counter terrorism and irregular warfare as the
first mission. During the course of the last 12 years of
conflicts, one key lesson that has emerged is the need for the
Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a rigorous comprehensive
understanding of the human terrain in which it is operating. A
deep understanding of the cultural, social, religious, and
ethnic factors on the ground are vital to successful
operations. While the Department claims that each of the
services are increasing their investments in these areas,
eliminating the need for defense-wide funding, the committee
has not seen any evidence to suggest that this is the case.
In 2008, DOD created the HSCB program to rapidly transition
basic research to tools for military personnel to increase
intelligence collection and integration, and provide our
warfighters better situational awareness and capabilities on
the battlefield. Since its establishment, the HSCB program has
developed and transitioned operational tools to U.S. Special
Operations Command, U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Pacific Command,
U.S. Southern Command, the Army's Training and Doctrine Command
Analysis Center, and International Security Agency Forces Joint
Command Headquarters in Afghanistan. HBSC fielded tools
include: data ingestion, analysis and modeling capabilities;
behavioral modeling capabilities; geospatial and social network
analysis tools; and automated techniques to rapidly extract
persons, events and sentiments.
In 2009, the Defense Science Board, in its report
``Understanding Human Dynamics'', identified a number of key
gaps in the DOD's knowledge of human dynamics. The HSCB program
addresses a majority of these gaps to include: multi-domain,
multi-speaker spoken conversation, transcription and
translation; technologies for extracting knowledge from both
structured and unstructured human networks; automated
assessments of the human terrain with an emphasis on attitudes,
influence networks, and the effects of strategic communication;
gaming for virtual training and mission rehearsal; automated
sentiment, intention, and deception detection; and dynamic
network analysis to understand influence, attitudes, and
beliefs.
Given the overall importance of this area, the committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million for each of the above
program elements, for a total of $15.0 million. Furthermore,
the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering to report to the congressional defense
committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act on the Department's overall investment strategy in the
field of human, social, cultural, and behavior research and
engineering, an assessment of the operational utility of
fielded HSCB tools, and a plan for transitioning funding for
this area from defense-wide activities to those funded by the
services.
Combating Terrorism Technology Support
The budget request included $77.8 million in PE 63122D8Z
for the Combating Terrorism Technical Support (CTTS) program, a
modest increase from $77.1 million in fiscal year 2013.
The committee supports the mission of the CTTS program to
rapidly develop and transition a wide range of technologies to
the joint, interagency, and international communities focused
on combating terrorism. However, in the current budgetary
environment, the committee observes--based upon an analysis of
CTTS programs completed in fiscal year 2012 and ongoing in
fiscal year 2013--that there is a significant amount of work
conducted by this program that is more suited to be funded by
the Special Operations Command and its associated components,
as well as by the services. Hence, the committee recommends a
decrease of $17.0 million to PE 63122D8Z.
Ballistic missile defense technology programs
The budget request included $309.2 million in PE 63175C for
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for development of ballistic
missile defense technology, including $229.9 million for
advanced technology development, and $70.0 million for the
Common Kill Vehicle technology development program, which is a
new program described elsewhere in this report.
The committee notes that MDA has placed a number of
previous technology development programs, which had been in
separate program elements, into a single technology development
program element. The committee is concerned that this
consolidation of all technology development projects into a
single program element may degrade transparency and oversight,
which would be contrary to the interests of the committee and
to the MDA efforts to improve transparency and oversight.
The committee also notes that advanced technology
development funding for fiscal year 2014, in addition to the
$70.0 million for the common kill vehicle technology
development program, spikes at $230.0 million, from a level of
$76.0 million in fiscal year 2013, and is planned to come down
in fiscal year 2015 and beyond to a level of about $138.0
million per year. The committee observes that a 1-year spike in
technology development funding will not create sustainable
progress, and is likely to lead to significant program
management and execution challenges, as well as starting work
that would not be continued in future years.
One of the previous MDA program elements that has been
moved into the technology development program element in the
budget request is the directed energy program within the
Weapons Technology project, for which $83.5 million is
requested. The committee notes that the MDA-directed energy
research and development program, along with other Department
of Defense-directed energy programs, do not have an adequate
level of common metrics for oversight and program evaluation,
as described elsewhere in this report. Furthermore, one of
MDA's directed energy projects, the Diode-Pumped Alkalai Laser
System (DPALS) project, does not have the same level of
coordination and oversight from an array of directed energy
experts as the fiber-combining laser project, which includes
the involvement of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency. Furthermore, the committee believes that MDA continues
to place too much focus on high-energy laser lethality work for
future boost-phase intercept missions, years before it is known
whether the technology will ever permit such applications.
Consequently, the committee recommends a reduction of $5.0
million to the DPALS project in the directed energy portion of
the weapons technology component of PE 633175C for Advanced
Technology, and an undistributed reduction of $25.0 million
across other portions of PE 633175C for Advanced Technology as
unsustainable growth. The committee also directs MDA to brief
the congressional defense committees within 90 days of the
enactment of this Act on a strategy for broadening the DPALS
effort to encourage effective peer review, competition, and
increased involvement of the high-energy laser expert
community.
The committee notes that the new Common Kill Vehicle
Technology research and development program is planned for
consistent levels of funding across the future-years defense
program, which will allow for a sustained research and
development effort. The committee believes this stable funding
approach program will permit sustainable efforts and results.
Rapid Fielding
The budget request included $315.0 million in Rapid
Fielding programs spread between Joint Capability Technology
Demonstrations ($174.4 million in PE 63648D8Z), Emerging
Capabilities Technology Development ($62.0 million in
63699D8Z), and Quick Reaction Special Projects ($78.5 million
in 63826D8Z).
The committee is pleased that the Department of Defense is
shifting its Rapid Fielding operational model from primarily
near-term gaps to a renewed look at longer-term interest areas
that are more strategic in nature. In addition, the committee
supports the Department's move to fund more conceptual,
developmental, and operational prototyping. The committee urges
the Rapid Fielding program to spearhead efforts to find
innovative integrated design teams that can develop
capabilities at far less cost than traditional defense
contractors. The committee notes the design of the 5th
Generation Aerial Target as one example where such a design and
management philosophy can potentially lead to significant gains
in affordability for the Department.
To encourage greater quality versus quantity of its
projects, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million
in PE 63648D8Z and $20.0 million in PE 63826D8Z from the Quick
Reaction Fund and Rapid Reaction Fund.
Networked Communications Capability Program
The budget request included $20.0 million for the Networked
Communications Capability Program, PE 63662D8Z.
The committee understands the importance of the Department
of Defense's needs in accelerating its wireless mobile
networking capabilities through both greater leveraging of
commercial capabilities, as well as pursuing solutions to
defense unique requirements. However, the committee observes
that there is significant investment across all the services
and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in
this area, and questions the value of this program at the
defense-wide level. Hence, the committee recommends a decrease
of $15.0 million and directs this activity to focus on
coordinating wireless mobile networking capabilities across the
services and DARPA, in coordination with the Defense
Information Systems Agency and the Department's Chief
Information Officer.
Defense industrial capacity innovation and sustainment
The budget request included $34.0 million in PE 63680D8Z
for defense-wide manufacturing science and technology and $14.0
million in PE 67210D8Z for industrial base analysis and
sustainment. The committee, along with other congressional
defense committees, has been a strong supporter of programs
that advance innovation in manufacturing and that sustain
targeted sectors and capabilities of the defense industrial
base. This view has also been expressed by prior studies of the
Defense Science Board (DSB), as well as the most recent
Quadrennial Defense Review. In the current budgetary
environment with an increased focus on affordability,
investments in advancing manufacturing technologies have shown
significant overall reductions in production and life cycle
costs.
Despite the critical importance of manufacturing
technology, the Department of Defense's (DOD) overall
manufacturing investment is only 0.3 percent of overall funding
for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation--well short of
the 1 percent goal recommended by the DSB. Last year, Congress
provided an additional $30.0 million to the Industrial Base
Innovation Fund (IBIF) program for advanced manufacturing
technologies. Recent examples of IBIF projects include improved
producibility of the electro-optical targeting system on the
Joint Strike Fighter, improved transparent armor for soldier
protection in ground combat vehicles, advanced high-energy
batteries, and light weight cables and wires for weight
reduction on aerospace systems. The new manufacturing
techniques for the electro-optical targeting system have led to
a return on investment in excess of a factor of 20. Given the
demonstrated return on investment in innovative manufacturing
technologies, the committee recommends an additional $25.0
million to continue the IBIF program in the 63680D8Z program
element line.
The committee directs the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy to
continue to make competitive, merit-based investments in
manufacturing research and development that address defense
industrial base shortfalls, especially those related to more
urgent production requirements and diminishing defense
manufacturing sources and material shortages, and a sustainable
defense design team base. Other areas of emphasis encouraged
are those related to the emerging fields of model-based
engineering and integrated computational materials engineering,
as highlighted in a recent National Research Council report,
and new innovative technologies being developed through public-
private partnerships such as the national Advanced
Manufacturing Partnership, Connecting American Manufacturing,
the National Digital Engineering and Manufacturing Consortium,
and the Metal Affordability Initiative.
Furthermore, the committee strongly urges DOD to
institutionalize this program with adequate resources in future
years and consider it as an important component of its wider
manufacturing and industrial base strategy, in part, informed
by its ongoing ``Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier'' analyses.
CWMD Systems
Section 3166 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 established a ``Congressional Advisory Panel
on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise.'' No
funding was requested in the fiscal year 2014 budget request
for the advisory panel. The panel ends on June 1, 2014. The
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to PE
0303310D8Z to carry out the functions of the advisory panel
under a transfer to PE 0902198D8Z.
Advanced sensor applications program
The budget request included $17.2 million in PE 63714D8Z
for the Advanced Sensor Applications Program (ASAP). This
represents a reduction from the level funded in fiscal year
2013 of $19.0 million. This reduction reflects a general
reduction applied to a number of budget line items in an
across-the-board manner. The committee believes that this
reduction, while modest by some standards, will cause the
program to postpone important testing and experiments. The
committee believes that these efforts are too important to
postpone or cancel, and therefore, recommends an increase of
$2.0 million for ASAP.
U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs
The budget request included $95.8 million in PE 63913C for
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for U.S.-Israeli cooperative
missile defense programs, including: $10.7 million to improve
the existing Arrow Weapon System; $52.6 million for continued
development of the Arrow-3 upper-tier interceptor missile; and
$32.5 million for co-development of a short-range missile
defense system called David's Sling. These systems are part of
Israel's layered defenses against missiles and rockets of
varying ranges, from longer-range missiles from Iran or Syria,
to short-range missiles and large caliber rockets fired from
Lebanese territory in the summer of 2006, to the very short-
range rockets and artillery fired from Gaza. The United States
is co-managing and jointly developing these systems to ensure
that they are compatible and interoperable with U.S. missile
defense systems.
The committee recognizes that the threat to Israel from
missiles and rockets of varying ranges is extremely serious and
growing, particularly with the crisis in Syria, and that
effective missile defenses are an essential component of
Israel's security and regional stability. The committee
supports efforts to enhance and accelerate these systems, in a
manner that is consistent with the terms and conditions of the
joint Project Agreements governing the management and execution
of these cooperative projects.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $150.0
million in PE 63913C for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile
defense programs, including: $30.0 million to improve the Arrow
Weapon System; $20.0 million for the Arrow-3 upper-tier
interceptor development program; and $100.0 million for the
David's Sling short-range missile defense system.
The budget request also included $220.3 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide, for MDA for Israel to procure
additional Iron Dome batteries and missiles. This is the first
year that funding for Iron Dome has been included in the budget
request, and the committee commends the Department of Defense
for making it part of the regular budget process.
The Iron Dome system, which was developed by Israel, was
used to great effect to defend against short-range rocket
attacks from Gaza in 2012, and had a reported operational
success rate of 85 percent. The committee recognizes that the
current situation in Syria has added to the risk of rocket and
missile attacks against Israel, and that Iron Dome is an
important component of Israel's ability to protect its
population against such attacks.
Advanced Innovative Technologies
The budget request included $130.0 million in PE 64250D8Z
for Advanced Innovative Technologies.
The committee is concerned that this significant level of
funding will not be able to be executed in fiscal year 2014 and
recommends a decrease of $30.0 million to this program element.
Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program focus areas
The Rapid Innovation Program (RIP) is a competitive, merit-
based program established by section 1073 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) that is designed to fund innovative technologies,
reduce acquisition or life cycle costs, address technical
risks, improve the timeliness of test and evaluation outcomes,
and rapidly insert technologies needed to meet critical
national security needs. The committee notes that $250.0
million was appropriated for the RIP in the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law
113-6); however, no funds were requested in fiscal year 2014.
The RIP was first authorized and funded in 2011. Over 170
programs were selected by the Department of Defense (DOD) in
2011 to include: automated engine part inspection tools,
compact anti-jam Global Positioning System antennas, enhanced
ground vehicle protection, lightweight ground fire detection
systems for combat outposts, ceramic based explosive ordnance
detection tool kits, and improvements to mine roller wheel
assemblies. All these programs are scheduled to be completed in
November 2013. The overall response from the Services has been
positive for the program, in particular, the fact that it has
opened up more collaborative efforts with small businesses and
non-traditional suppliers to DOD.
The committee recommends an increase of $150.0 million in
funding for the RIP to PE 64775D8Z focusing primarily on the
following three broad areas:
(1) delivering nearer-term emerging technologies to
current military operations to enhance capabilities in
areas such as: electronic warfare; cybersecurity tools;
robotics and autonomous systems; spectrum management;
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
capabilities; reducing soldier load; improving fixed,
mobile, and dismounted force protection; and detecting
and defeating all forms of improvised explosive
devices;
(2) contributing to breakthrough technologies for
future military capabilities in areas such as:
countering weapons of mass destruction; space systems;
hypersonics; highly autonomous systems; large-scale
data management and manipulation for command and
control; and enhancing human performance; and
(3) improving the affordability of defense operations
in areas such as: advanced manufacturing; reducing the
cost and footprint of energy and other logistical
items; interoperability across platforms and systems;
and innovative prototyping approaches for new platforms
and systems.
The committee reaffirms the requirement by law that all
such funding be allocated on the basis of a merit-based
selection, pursuant to a broad agency announcement or similar
competitive process. To ensure the integrity of this
competitive process, the committee directs the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to report on the execution of RIP.
The report will include but not be limited to: an assessment of
the RIP contract solicitation and award process; an assessment
of RIP execution and monitoring of contracts; an overall
assessment of how the RIP is meeting its goals and guidelines;
and a complete list of all RIP awards since program inception
to include funding organization, project, contractor, location,
award amount, award date, description of project, confirmation
that the contract award was competitive and merit-based, a
description of what Joint Urgent Operational Needs or other
critical national security need each RIP award addressed, and
the current status of each RIP award.
Developmental test and evaluation
The budget request included $15.5 million in PE 65804D8Z
for developmental test and evaluation and $44.2 million in PE
605142D8Z for systems engineering.
The committee notes the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) required the Department of
Defense (DOD) to rebuild its systems engineering and
developmental testing organizations to ensure that design
problems are understood and addressed early in the acquisition
process.
While DOD has taken great strides in improving its
acquisition process, the committee notes that the Fiscal Year
2012 Annual Report by the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation--dated December 2012--provided a list of 17 major
defense acquisition programs--the same number as in 2011--that
had discoveries of significant problems during operational test
and evaluation that should have been detected and corrected
during developmental test and evaluation.
Furthermore, the committee notes that the Department's
defense-wide systems engineering budget request is almost three
times greater than the developmental test and evaluation budget
request. In fiscal year 2013, the committee recommended an
increase of $5.0 million to developmental test and evaluation.
The committee believes that DOD is continuing to underfund its
developmental test and evaluation activities, as evidenced by
the unacceptable number of problems being discovered in
operational test and evaluation.
To bring more parity between the systems engineering and
developmental test and evaluation activities, the committee
recommends a transfer of $5.0 million from PE 65142D8Z to PE
65804D8Z.
Defense Technical Information Center
The budget request included $56.0 million in PE 65801KA for
the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), a modest
increase from $55.5 million in fiscal year 2013.
The committee supports the innovation of DTIC to improve
information technologies that enhance collaboration and
research support and data repository services. However, the
committee questions the role of all the web services and site
hosting activities that DTIC provides as well as whether the
size of the organization is commensurate with its mission.
Hence, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million.
Conflict Records Research Center
The budget request included $3.2 million in PE 35186D8Z for
Policy Research and Development programs.
The committee notes that the Conflict Records Research
Center (CRRC) was established to address the Secretary of
Defense's intent to enable research into captured records with
complete openness and rigid adherence to academic freedom and
integrity. The mission of the CRRC is to facilitate the use of
captured records to support research, both within and outside
the government.
The CRRC has made significant contributions in translating
and facilitating the analysis of important documents in its
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda collections. However, the CRRC is
not funded in fiscal year 2014 and there appears to not be any
plans for a transition of the CRRC's expertise or access to the
documents. Hence, the committee recommends $1.0 million to the
above PE for the CRRC and directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy to report to the congressional defense
committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act on a plan to sustain the CRRC's capabilities.
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
The budget request included $1.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for the
development, integration, and testing of special operations-
unique mission kits for the MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV).
U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is responsible for
the development and acquisition of special operations
capabilities to, among other things, effectively carry out
operations against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral
damage.
The committee approved an above threshold reprogramming of
funds requested by the Department of Defense in January 2013 to
provide for the development, integration, and testing of
additional capabilities to address identified technology gaps
on USSOCOM UAVs. The committee understands that this
reprogramming only partially addressed such technology gaps.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $12.0 million
in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide,
for the MQ-9 UAV.
Combatant Craft Forward Looking Infrared Radar
The budget request included $1.2 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide for Combatant Craft Forward Looking Infrared Radar
(CCFLIR). Due to parts obsolescence issues with the current
CCFLIR systems, U.S. Special Operations Command has requested a
transfer of this funding to Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Defense-wide, for design, development, and testing
of the next-generation CCFLIR system. The committee recommends
this transfer.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs
The budget request included $2.87 billion for the research
and management activities of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA). Taking into account the current fiscal
environment, and given some lingering questions about the
agency's ability to fully execute all its funding in a timely
fashion, as well as concerns over certain programs, the
committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million from DARPA's
overall budget.
The committee is pleased that DARPA has conducted an
independent review of its Adaptive Vehicle Make ground vehicle
manufacturing program, is refocusing the program, and is paying
attention to how survivability considerations will be
realistically taken into account.
DARPA is pursuing a Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) X-
Plane technology program to design, develop, and demonstrate
improvements in speed, hover performance, cruise efficiency,
and payload. While the committee notes that the program has
identified challenging speed goals that are significant
improvements over rotorcraft performance today, the committee
believes that the target size of a vehicle in the 10,000 to
12,000 pounds class is too small to be of useful military
utility. Furthermore, the committee strongly urges DARPA to
anticipate more than a single performer to be selected for
flight tests. Competition in this program is vital, and there
should be at least two performers carried through flight
testing. As one source for increased funding for this program,
the committee recommends terminating the Transformer (X)
Vehicle program due to questions about its military utility.
The committee expresses deep concern for how the Plan-X
cyber-security program was given a disproportionate reduction
due to sequestration in fiscal year 2013. Given the potential
for significant contributions by this program to the
Department's greater cyber-security efforts, the committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million to PE 62303E for this
program. The committee will continue to monitor this program to
see how its schedule will be impacted.
Items of Special Interest
Army Occupant-Centric Survivability Program
The committee acknowledges the report that the Army
provided to the congressional defense committees earlier this
year about its Occupant-Centric Platform Technology Enabled
Capability Demonstration research program and supports its
objectives to produce military standards that inform future
ground vehicle development to ensure that vehicle designs
mitigate injuries due to underbody blasts and subsequent crash/
rollover events. Noting that the program will take until the
end of fiscal year 2015 to produce these standards, the
committee encourages the Army to move as expeditiously on this
program as possible and to leverage emerging technologies in
the commercial sector, especially those related to vehicle
restraints.
Chemical and biological defense medical countermeasures strategy
The Department of Defense (DOD) is pursuing an enhanced
strategy for rapid and cost-effective development, approval,
and manufacturing of medical countermeasures (MCM) against
chemical and biological threats, both known and validated
threats, and emerging threats. This strategy is part of an
integrated national bio-defense MCM strategy to produce
vaccines and therapeutics against such high-risk threats as
Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fever viruses and pandemic
disease outbreaks. Given the need to deploy U.S. forces in many
parts of the world with endemic diseases and potential bio-
threats, and the need to ensure our military can operate
successfully in a chemically or biologically contaminated
environment, the Department has a number of unique MCM
requirements that cannot be met outside of the Department's
programs.
The committee notes that this strategy is a coordinated and
collaborative interagency effort, guided by updated national
strategy and guidance documents, and involves particularly
close cooperation between DOD, the Department of Health and
Human Services, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
This coordination permits each agency to perform its assigned
tasks in a complementary fashion, reduce costs, and avoid
duplication of effort.
One key aspect of this DOD strategy is the development of
an Advanced Development and Manufacturing (ADM) capability,
formerly known as the Medical Countermeasures Initiative, which
is intended to provide DOD an agile and flexible facility for
rapid and affordable development and production of MCMs to
protect military personnel, particularly prior to exposure to
chemical and biological threats. This is a significant change
from the traditional MCM development process, which is
characterized by long development schedules, high risks, and
high costs for single drugs for each validated threat.
In contrast to the previous ``one-bug, one-drug'' approach,
the Department is emphasizing the rapid development and FDA
approval of broad-spectrum vaccines and anti-viral products
that are intended to protect against a range of bio threats.
The committee commends this more cost-effective approach and
encourages the Department to continue with accelerated efforts
to develop and seek FDA approval of broad-spectrum medical
countermeasures, including anti-viral products that would
provide improved capability against such threats as existing
filoviruses that pose a current threat to forward-deployed U.S.
military forces, and which could be weaponized by terrorist
groups.
The committee notes that the Department awarded a contract
for the ADM facility in late 2012 and anticipates achieving
full operational capability in 2015. The committee expects to
be kept informed of progress with the ADM effort, including its
results in meeting DOD objectives for cost reduction,
flexibility, and agility in developing and producing MCMs
against known and evolving threats, including emerging
infectious diseases.
The committee notes that section 1601 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-
136) directed the Secretary of Defense to ``carry out a program
of biomedical countermeasures, including but not limited to
therapeutics and vaccines, for the protection of the Armed
Forces. . .''. The committee believes the Department's enhanced
MCM strategy, particularly its development of an ADM capability
and its focus on cost reduction and affordability, is an
important step to meet this requirement.
Combat casualty care research
In February 2013, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) issued a report titled, ``Actions Needed to Help Ensure
Combat Casualty Care Research Achieves Goals.'' The GAO
recommended that ``the Secretary of Defense direct the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
to communicate to DOD's nonmedical research organizations the
importance of coordination with the JPC-6 chair on combat
casualty care issues, and require this coordination early in
the research process when these organizations conduct research
with implications for combat casualty care.'' Furthermore, the
GAO recommended that ``the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs develop and implement a plan to assess the
extent to which combat casualty care research and development
fills gaps in DOD's capability to provide combat casualty care
and achieves DOD's other goals for this portfolio of
research.''
The committee notes that DOD concurred with GAO's
recommendations and has taken positive steps to address them.
The committee directs the Department to provide a comprehensive
briefing to the committee, within 30 days of the enactment of
this Act, on its progress in implementing GAO's recommendations
and any additional actions it plans to take to achieve combat
casualty care research goals.
Common kill vehicle technology program
On March 15, 2013, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel
announced a series of steps planned to enhance homeland
ballistic missile defense, to stay ahead of the evolving long-
range missile threat from North Korea and Iran. One of the
steps announced is the creation of a new program proposed in
the President's budget request to develop advanced and common
kill vehicle technologies for the Ground-Based Interceptor
(GBI) and future variants of the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3)
interceptor for the Navy's Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
program.
The objectives of the program are to develop common
technologies, subsystems, or components that could be used in
either kill vehicle, and to advance the state-of-the-art kill
vehicle capability, including propulsion, electronics,
navigation, seeker optics, discrimination, and communications.
Advances in these kill vehicle technologies could provide
significant improvements in the effectiveness of the Ground-
based Midcourse Defense (GMD) and Aegis Ballistic Missile
Defense systems, and the overall Ballistic Missile Defense
System, which are high priority objectives for the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) and the combatant commands that rely on
these systems.
Given that the program was first announced in mid-March,
the committee understands it is still at the beginning stage of
program concept development, and does not yet have a well-
defined long-term plan in place. This is understandable for a
new research and development program, but the committee expects
MDA to provide more definition and clarity on the long-term
plan for the Common Kill Vehicle Technology Development
program.
Section 225 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) requires the Director of
MDA to develop a long-term plan to modify and upgrade the
current GBI Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle, and the competitive
development of a next-generation kill vehicle for the GBI. The
provision also requires the Director to report to Congress on
the plan by July 2013. The committee expects that the new
Common Kill Vehicle Technology Development program will be
compatible and consistent with the intent of Section 225.
One key element of any future kill vehicle program will be
advanced propulsion for the Divert and Attitude Control System
(DACS) that steer the kill vehicle into the target warhead,
including solid-fueled DACS that are currently used on all SM-3
variants. The committee notes that MDA plans to rely on the
industrial base for innovation and competition for this Common
Kill Vehicle Technology Development program. However, with the
termination of the SM-3 IIB program, one of the two industry
contractors with solid DACS expertise is at risk of ending
their work and their ability to contribute to this program.
With these concerns in mind, the committee directs MDA to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not
later than March 1, 2014, setting forth the long-term plan and
objectives for the Common Kill Vehicle Technology Development
program, including an explanation of how it intends to maintain
a competitive industrial base to implement the program.
The committee supports the efforts of MDA to develop
technology for a next generation high performance, high
reliability, and highly producible kill vehicle, which MDA says
could be ready before the end of the decade. A next generation
kill vehicle would have enhanced discrimination capabilities
and the potential for volume kill capability. The committee
encourages the MDA to move the program as expeditiously as
possible from research and development into product
development, based on demonstrated technical progress and
consistent with sound acquisition practices, and to transfer
this effort from the Ballistic Missile Defense Technology
Development program element into a new program element
dedicated to the development of a next generation kill vehicle
for the Ground-Based Interceptor and future variants of the
Standard Missile-3 interceptor. The committee expects MDA to
fully incorporate the lessons learned from the previously
terminated Multiple Kill Vehicle program to avoid the problems
encountered in that program.
High energy laser weapons
The committee notes that in the fiscal year 2014 budget
request, the Department requested $364.0 million for high
energy laser research and development. One of the key
challenges in comparing the performance and maturity levels of
the various laser systems across the services, the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Missile
Defense Agency, is the lack of common performance metrics and
the criteria that can be used for down-selection, further
development, and eventual deployment. To address this
deficiency, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering shall develop a set of common high energy laser
metrics that characterize the operational performance of a high
energy laser to include a measurement of power deposited on a
given area over a given amount of time at a given distance,
dependent upon atmospheric conditions, as a function of the
size, weight, and power of the complete laser weapon system,
including power and thermal management sub-systems, the laser
source, the beam control and optical sub-systems, and the
command and control sub-systems. These metrics, as well as an
evaluation according to these metrics that will be used for
decisions on further development and eventual deployment of all
current high energy laser systems the Department is currently
developing, shall be reported to the congressional defense
committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act.
Furthermore, the committee notes that the Department is
pursuing multiple programs with solid state fiber lasers and
strongly urges the Department to develop an integrated strategy
that will lead to a rational down-selection process towards
those systems that are most effective and mature in order to
accelerate their testing in relevant operational environments
and ultimately deployment.
Lastly, the committee notes that the majority of DOD's
laser directed energy programs are focused on the development
and demonstration of high-average-power continuous wave lasers,
which have the goal of delivering sufficient thermal energy to
damage or destroy targets. Insufficient attention is being
given to ultra-short-pulse very-high-peak-power lasers which
can produce unique non-thermal effects on materials,
components, and systems--effects which cannot be produced by
deposition of thermal energy. The committee notes that other
countries are exploring the applications for these non-thermal
effects, and are advancing the development of ultra-short-pulse
high-peak power lasers and associated technologies. The
committee directs the Department, in particular DARPA, to begin
considering these systems to determine what military utility
they can provide.
Future Ground-Based Interceptor acquisition
The committee notes that on March 15, 2013, Secretary of
Defense Chuck Hagel announced plans to deploy 14 additional
operational Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) at Fort Greely
Alaska by 2017, and to procure 14 GBIs in the future to replace
the deployed ones. The budget request, which was submitted less
than one month after Secretary Hagel's announcement, indicates
that the Department of Defense intends to procure the 14
replacement GBIs at a rate of 2 per year for seven years, with
funding starting in fiscal year 2016 and deliveries continuing
until at least 2024.
The committee observes that there are a number of issues
facing the Department with respect to future acquisition of
GBIs stretching more than a decade into the future. These
issues include: (1) the need to correct and demonstrate the
problems experienced with the Capability Enhancement-II exo-
atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV), and to have alternative options
available in case the correction is not successfully
demonstrated in an intercept flight test in 2014; (2) planned
development efforts for significant EKV upgrades and new
capabilities and designs, some of which may be available for
deployment before 2020; (3) planned GBI reliability
improvements and upgrades, some of which may be available for
deployment before 2020; (4) procurement of 2 interceptors per
year does not appear to be the most cost-effective acquisition
approach; and (5) the possibility of producing a mix of 3-stage
and 2-stage GBIs as part of the 14 additional GBIs to be
procured. The committee notes that, given current plans, the
GBI production line will remain operational for at least the
next decade, thus enabling the option of procuring additional
GBIs in the future, if needed. However, it is not yet clear
what the best acquisition options are for procuring the 14
additional GBIs.
Given these issues, the committee directs the Director of
the Missile Defense Agency to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, describing the issues and
options under consideration for future GBI acquisition,
including a cost-benefit assessment of multi-year procurement
authority. The report should include any recommendations for
congressional action to support future GBI acquisition.
Hybrid Airships
Over the last several years, the Department of Defense
(DOD) has pursued a number of airship vehicles to span a range
of missions from long duration Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (ISR) to heavy lift. Many of these programs have
been terminated or concluded due to either budgetary issues,
technical challenges, changed requirements, or declining
interest. Nevertheless, in testimony before the committee,
General William M. Fraser, III, USAF, the Commander of U.S.
Transportation Command said, ``hybrid airships represent a
transformational capability, bridging the longstanding gap
between high-speed, lower-capacity airlift, and low-speed,
higher-capacity sealift. Across the range of military
operations, this capability can be leveraged from strategic to
tactical distances... We encourage development of commercial
technologies that may lead to enhanced mobility capabilities in
the future.''
One class of airships--hybrid airships--has been
investigated under DOD's Pelican program and the Army's Long
Endurance Multi-intelligence Vehicle (LEMV). The Pelican
airship uses a system to control its buoyancy, while the LEMV
is a standard hybrid airship with fixed buoyancy. While the
Pelican program recently demonstrated a limited capability of
the underlying technology for controlled variable buoyancy,
there are still significant advances that are needed to be made
in order to develop a robust flight vehicle that would have a
cargo capacity with any military utility. The committee
understands that there is some degree of interest in the
commercial sector for the transportation capabilities of a
heavy-lift hybrid airship. If such a capability were developed
in the private sector, there is the potential opportunity for
DOD to leverage this capability for its needs. The committee
directs U.S. Transportation Command and the Air Force Mobility
Command to monitor progress in this area and report to the
congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after
the enactment of this Act on the status of developments in the
commercial sector regarding hybrid airships that could be used
to provide the capability identified by General Fraser, and to
what extent the DOD could benefit from them.
Implementation of Air Force Strategic Weather Modernization Plan
Recommendations
The December 2012 U.S. Air Force Report to Congress titled,
``Air Force Strategic Weather Modernization Plan'' states,
``Air Force Weather Agency products, processes, and
organizations must continue to improve while using technology
and training as enablers to assist Airmen to achieve increased
efficiency and effectiveness. To accomplish this goal, Air
Force Weather must remain at the cutting edge of science and
technology. At the same time, to successfully operate in the
current high-technology, yet fiscally constrained environment,
it is imperative to partner with other Department of Defense
(DOD), civil, research and development, and international
agencies to develop, access, and transition needed capabilities
to operations. Air Force Weather will focus modernization
efforts on those capabilities required to collect, analyze,
predict, tailor, and integrate accurate, timely, and relevant
weather data for the warfighter.''
The committee is concerned that the Air Force currently
lacks a comprehensive meteorological and weather analysis
training program that relies on the most up to date technology.
Therefore, the committee recommends that the Air Force brief
this committee on its plan to implement the recommendations of
its weather modernization report to include an incremental
improvement strategy that ultimately creates a meteorological
and weather analysis training program for the Air Force in
coordination and cooperation with other DOD, civil, research
and development, and international agencies.
Importance of preserving and maintaining mission critical information
technology services
The committee supports the Air Force's ongoing efforts to
acquire information technology (IT) products and services at
lower costs and increased efficiencies. These efforts include
standardizing configurations, maintaining strict adherence to
Air Force and Department of Defense technical standards,
leveraging $24.0 billion in IT buying power, and maximizing
small business participation. The committee also supports
additional efforts being taken by the Air Force to achieve
cost-savings and improved efficiencies by instituting better
business practices.
However, the committee is concerned about a potential
disconnect between broader IT modernization efforts and those
efforts focused on the Air Force's mission critical, high
consequence networks, such as those related to its nuclear and
space missions. Hence, the committee directs the Air Force to
take all steps required to preserve and sustain the high
consequence, mission critical IT services to ensure there are
no adverse mission impacts.
Improved turbine engine program
The committee supports research and development for the
Improved Turbine Engine Program that would increase the
operational capability and fuel efficiency of Army helicopters.
The committee is aware that the Army has achieved a Material
Development Decision and that under the current acquisition
strategy will fund competitive prototyping through Milestone-B.
The committee encourages the Army to take competitive
prototyping as far as resources will permit to mitigate
technical risk and prove out performance. For example, there
may be an opportunity to continue competition into and through
a preliminary flight rating test milestone, or through a flight
demonstration of each competing engine. This investment in
continuing competition could help control costs, reduce
programmatic risk, and mitigate modeling and simulation
shortfalls. Selecting the appropriate point at which to down
select to a single engine contractor is a crucial step to
ensure the taxpayers and Department of Defense get the best
value in investment and performance.
Independent assessment of Army Distributed Common Ground System analyst
tool integration
The budget request included $27.6 in PE 35208A for
development of the Army's Distributed Common Ground System
(DCGS). The committee directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense
to task the National Assessment Group (NAG) to conduct the
following activities with respect to the Army's DCGS:
(1) Identify the software tools and capabilities in DCGS
that provide the human-machine interface for manipulating DCGS,
querying data stores, and displaying results.
(2) Characterize the Application Programming Interfaces
(APIs) and other technical interface specifications used by
DCGS human-machine interface tools and capabilities.
(3) Determine whether DCGS interfaces are adequate to
support successful integration of existing DCGS human-machine
interface tools and capabilities or similar tools that perform
the same or similar functions.
(4) Create an inventory of such tools and capabilities
within DCGS and identify which of them are licensed products
developed by a private corporation, were developed with
government funding, or are open source products, and at what
cost.
(5) For each tool and capability, determine whether it was
integrated into DCGS by government or private sector funding,
by government or contractor personnel, and where data is
available, at what cost.
(6) Select a representative sample of advanced commercially
licensed analyst tools that perform the same or similar
functions as tools currently used in DCGS.
(7) With the permission of the owners of those tools,
characterize the technical interface specifications that would
have to be satisfied for the tools to be successfully
integrated into DCGS.
(8) Compare the interface specifications necessary for
successful integration of commercial tools to DCGS existing
specification and identify any obstacles to the successful
integration of commercially licensed analyst tools.
The committee directs the NAG, in characterizing the tool
integration interfaces within DCGS and commercial products, to
assume that the tools would need to be able to ingest and
manipulate data created or acquired locally as well as data
already resident in the DCGS system. The NAG shall evaluate the
DCGS Release 1, 2, and 3 versions.
The committee directs the NAG to provide the results of
this analysis to the Secretary of the Army and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
(USD(AT&L)) within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, and
the USD(AT&L) to forward the NAG assessment, together with any
comments and recommendations, to the congressional defense
committees and the congressional intelligence committees within
210 days of the enactment of this Act. The committee directs
that not more than 65 percent of the funds authorized to be
appropriated for Army DCGS development in fiscal year 2014 may
be obligated or expended prior to delivery of the required
report.
Joint Land-Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) system
The Joint Land-Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor
(JLENS) system is a paired aerostat system intended to provide
persistent elevated sensor data needed to detect, track, and
defeat airborne threats, including cruise missiles, manned and
unmanned aircraft, and surface moving targets, including
swarming boats. Based on a recently restructured engineering
and manufacturing development (EMD) program, JLENS is nearing
the completion of the EMD phase of the acquisition cycle, and
is planned to demonstrate its potential capability and assess
future options. As a joint system managed by the Army, it has
demonstrated interoperability with a number of Army and Navy
weapon systems. The Army plans to conduct an operational
exercise with JLENS at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, to
demonstrate its capabilities in support of the North American
Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command for their
National Capital Region homeland defense mission, starting in
October 2014.
The committee supports the planned JLENS demonstration in
this operational exercise and believes it will provide critical
information for the Department of Defense to assess the ability
of JLENS to support other combatant commander sensor
requirements in the future. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees, not later than 90 days after the initiation of the
JLENS demonstration, identifying the data and analyses that it
plans to use from the demonstration to guide future acquisition
decisions for JLENS. The report shall also include a discussion
of how the Department intends to support validated requirements
of combatant commanders for persistent elevated surveillance of
cruise missile and surface moving threats.
Metrics for evaluating Commercial Solutions for Classified
The budget request included $181.6 million in PE 33140G for
the Information Systems Security Program at the National
Security Agency (NSA). NSA's Commercial Solutions for
Classified (CSfC) program aims to shift the protection of
classified information from reliance on government-engineered
solutions toward publicly available commercial technologies.
The program's technical approach is to layer commercial devices
into a system for the protection of classified information,
relying on the redundancy and mutual support of multiple
commercial products to mitigate the risk of security flaws in
any one layer. The committee strongly supports NSA's initiative
to provide rapid and affordable security solutions for
commercial products to enable the Department of Defense (DOD)
to exploit advanced commercial technology.
However, the committee is concerned that the program's
metrics of success focus on breadth and speed of deployment and
user acceptance, not actual measurements of the level of
security achieved. Commercial technologies potentially offer
lower cost and advanced capability, but NSA must ensure that it
detects any degradation in security should it arise due to the
use of CSfC architectures.
Therefore, the committee directs that NSA develop a plan to
collect data on deployments of CSfC solutions and products and
compare their security performance to systems engineered by
traditional methods. In building the plan, NSA should consider
options from the full range of potential sources of data on
security, such as security analyses, testing, blue- and red-
team events, cyber exercises, and field performance, such as
intrusion rates, speed with which intrusions are detected, and
effort required for remediation. The committee further directs
that the DOD Chief Information Officer review and approve the
plan and transmit the plan to the congressional defense
committees and the congressional intelligence committees within
120 days of enactment of this Act.
The committee also directs the program manager for the CSfC
program to examine the problem of detecting and remediating
vulnerabilities in the software that controls the power
conditioning for mobile devices that could allow attackers to
rapidly deplete limited power sources. In today's mobile
communications world, power sources are the key limiting factor
for mission success and optimization of battery performance and
longevity are largely software controlled.
Military Scientists and Engineers
The committee has been a strong supporter of the Department
of Defense's (DOD) science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education and outreach programs. The DOD
needs to be able to attract and retain the best and brightest
scientists and engineers for both its civilian and military
personnel. The committee acknowledges that there has been
greater emphasis on the civilian STEM sector and that the
number of military STEM officers has experienced a steeper
decline than the total number of officers over the last two-
plus decades. The broader question that needs to be addressed
is how well DOD is managing its uniformed STEM workforce to
ensure that it will keep pace with its own evolving needs and
high technology developments around the world.
Hence, to better understand the current situation with DOD
uniformed STEM personnel, the committee directs the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in
coordination with the services, to report to the congressional
defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment
of this Act on the following:
(1) the current and future requirements for uniformed
STEM personnel, including requirements for types of
degrees and scientific and technical fields;
(2) how uniformed STEM personnel are used and
integrated into the total force (by service), including
how the balance between officer leadership and
technical competence is addressed;
(3) what differences, if any, exist between the data
DOD collects on its civilian workforce and uniformed
personnel in STEM fields to include:
(a) the educational degree discipline;
(b) the granting school of all baccalaureate,
graduate, and professional degrees; and
(c) the non-military occupation of Reserve
component members; and
(4) how the Defense Manpower Data Center is used for
managing both civilian and military STEM personnel.
Scientific and technical conferences
As a result of some unfortunate recent events in other
government agencies, the Office of Management and Budget
released Memorandum M-12-12 last year that provided guidance to
departments and agencies on government travel and conference
attendance. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued further
implementing guidance later in the year that established a
tiered approval structure for conference oversight
responsibilities. The committee understands that the
implementing guidance has led to the oversight and approval of
science and technology (S&T)-funded travel and conference
sponsoring and attendance by very senior service and department
levels that requires additional time and resources.
An unintended consequence of this guidance has been a
significant reduction in the DOD's participation in S&T-funded
travel to major scientific facilities or experimental sites for
research projects, grantee and contractor site visits, program
reviews and technical evaluations, science board and advisory
group meetings, international S&T engagements, standards-
setting committees, scientific society-sponsored conferences,
and events and competitions authorized under section 2192 of
Title 10, United States Code, for educational outreach
initiatives. Reductions in travel and conferences pose a
special threat to science and engineering activities because of
the collaborative nature of the work and the importance of
extensive interchange among researchers to remain cognizant of
and extend the current state of knowledge. The committee is
concerned that decreased participation may be jeopardizing the
ability of DOD S&T to successfully complete their S&T missions.
In order to quantify the impact that these policies are
having on the DOD S&T enterprise, the committee directs the
Government Accountability Office to undertake a study of the
impact of the above mentioned policies on the DOD S&T
enterprise, including the National Nuclear Security
Administration, and report to the congressional defense
committees its findings no later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of this Act. Furthermore, in order to streamline
approval timelines and reduce attendant delays, the committee
directs the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer and
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to establish procedures to allow the services and
agency heads to exercise more local control and decision making
authority over travel and conference oversight and approval,
consistent with applicable laws and regulations and the need to
ensure the appropriate use of taxpayer funds.
Tactical power grids
The committee is aware that the U.S. Army Research,
Development, and Engineering Command and the Office of Naval
Research are each pursuing the development of tactical power
grids and advanced mobile electric power distribution systems
to assist the Army and Marine Corps respectively, to meet the
need for the efficient distribution of mobile electric power in
a stable tactical grid environment. While the committee
encourages these efforts to improve safety, reliability, reduce
fuel consumption, and maximize energy efficiency, the committee
urges the services to closely coordinate to avoid unnecessary
duplication and to continue these efforts to determine whether
these objectives can be met.
Trusted microelectronics
The committee recognizes the vital importance of supply
chain risk management for Department of Defense (DOD) systems,
especially for microelectronics components and software, in
order to maintain mission assurance of its weapons systems. A
key component of microelectronics manufacturing for critical
DOD systems is the Trusted Foundry program as well as the
Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA). Given the rapid pace
of microelectronics obsolescence, the committee supports the
continued improvement of DMEA's capabilities as a foundry of
last resort when commercial entities in the Trusted Foundry
program are not able to manufacture a given component.
In addition to supporting the Trusted Foundry program and
DMEA, the committee urges DOD to ensure that an enterprise-wide
approach to microelectronics trust is taken, to include the
security of photomask design and inspection tools given their
criticality in the integrated circuit manufacturing process.
The committee urges DOD to continue to work with the private
sector in ongoing partnership programs to reduce supply chain
vulnerabilities and to ensure that technologies and products
developed are transitioned to the manufacturing processes used
for DOD microelectronics components.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Operation and maintenance funding (sec. 301)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at the
levels identified in section 4301 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Logistics and Sustainment
Sustainment of critical manufacturing capabilities within Army arsenals
(sec. 311)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the military
services and defense agencies, to review current and expected
manufacturing requirements for which there is no or limited
domestic commercial source and which are appropriate for
manufacturing within an arsenal owned by the United States in
order to support critical manufacturing capabilities.
Strategic policy for prepositioned materiel and equipment (sec. 312)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to develop an overarching strategy, along
with an implementation plan, to integrate and synchronize at a
Department-wide level, the services' prepositioning program.
The strategy and implementation plan would ensure that the
Department of Defense's (DOD) prepositioning programs, both
ground and afloat, align with national defense strategies, new
DOD priorities, and emphasize joint oversight to maximize
effectiveness and efficiencies in prepositioned materiel and
equipment across the DOD.
The committee continues to believe in the strategic
importance of the effective prepositioning of material and
equipment in locations around the world, both ground and
afloat, to facilitate and speed our response to crises or
contingencies. Fiscal challenges require the DOD to carefully
balance the investment in prepositioned materiel and equipment
to achieve both national military objectives and other DOD
priorities.
The committee understands that the DOD is committed to
reconstituting prepositioned materiel and equipment but must
balance these efforts with the Department's other priorities,
such as restructuring capabilities within its prepositioned
materiel and equipment and changes in its overseas military
presence.
The committee is concerned that the DOD has not implemented
an overarching strategy and joint service oversight framework
for its prepositioning programs. As the DOD and the nation face
fiscal constraints in the coming years, overarching strategic
guidance that emphasizes joint oversight of the DOD's
prepositioning program is essential to reduce any unnecessary
overlap, duplication, and inefficiencies among the services and
to maximize cost savings while minimizing risks.
As far back as 2005, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) has reported that each of the services and the Defense
Logistics Agency were planning the future of their
prepositioning programs without the benefit of an integrated
DOD-wide plan or joint doctrine to coordinate their efforts.
The GAO has made several recommendations over the years for the
DOD to develop overarching strategic guidance and improve the
joint service oversight of its prepositioning programs. While
the DOD has agreed with the need to develop department-wide
strategic guidance, efforts to do so have not materialized.
Moreover, the committee is concerned that the DOD may be
moving away from such efforts. For example, the DOD had
previously stated that its Comprehensive Materiel Response Plan
would provide the strategic guidance and that the Department
would pursue opportunities for joint oversight as the GAO
recommended. However, when the plan was approved in January
2013, it specifically excluded prepositioning. The committee
believes that an increased emphasis on joint program management
and oversight of prepositioned materiel and equipment would
unify the DOD's prepositioning efforts in support of defense
priorities, reduce unnecessary duplication, and achieve cost
savings and efficiencies.
Extension and modification of authority for airlift transportation at
Department of Defense rates for non-Department of Defense
Federal cargoes (sec. 313)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2642(a) of title 10, United States Code, to extend the
authority to provide to other Federal agencies airlift
transportation at the same rate the Department of Defense (DOD)
charges its own units for similar transportation and to expand
the authority to include all means of transportation, not just
airlift. The Department currently uses this authority to: (1)
provide transportation support to other departments and
agencies to increase peacetime business; and (2) promote the
improved use of airlift by filling excess capacity with paying
cargo.
The proposal also would expand the authority to allow the
use of extra capacity on strategic transportation assets of the
military, to include aircraft and vessels, for transportation
provided in support of foreign military sales. During peacetime
operations, utilization of aircraft and vessels to meet
training and readiness requirements is typically greater than
actual cargo transportation requirements. Therefore, DOD can
transport extra cargo at little or no increase in operating
costs, making utilization of excess capacity by other federal
agencies prudent. Additionally, use of such capacity for the
shipment of items for other departments or agencies complements
the training needs of DOD.
The provision would also extend the sunset date for this
authority from October 28, 2014, until September 30, 2019.
Subtitle C--Readiness
Modification of authorities on prioritization of funds for equipment
readiness and strategic capability (sec. 321)
The committee recommends a provision that would cancel the
requirement for an annual report on the Army's transition to
modular force structure. The provision would also cancel the
review of the Army's modularity report by the Government
Accountability Office.
Strategic policy for the retrograde, reconstitution, and replacement of
operating forces used to support overseas contingency
operations (sec. 322)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to establish a policy setting forth the
programs and priorities of the Department of Defense (DOD) for
the retrograde, reconstitution, and replacement of units and
materiel used to support overseas contingency operations. The
provision would direct that the policy shall take into account
national security threats, the requirements of the combatant
commands, the current readiness of the operating forces of the
military departments, and risk associated with the strategic
depth and the time necessary to reestablish required personnel,
equipment, and training readiness in such operating forces.
The provision would further direct that the required DOD
implementation plan, and the annual updates to the initial plan
for the following three years, shall be submitted to the
congressional defense committees no later than 120 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
The provision would also directs the Comptroller General to
review the DOD implementation plan and policy and report to the
congressional defense committees no later than 60 days after
submission of the report or updates from the Secretary of
Defense.
Lastly, the provision would encourage DOD to submit a
classified annex to accompany the implementation plan and
policy, where appropriate.
Subtitle D--Reports
Strategy for improving asset visibility and in-transit visibility (sec.
331)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to complete a comprehensive strategy and
implementation plan for improving asset visibility tracking and
in-transit visibility across the Department of Defense.
Changes to quarterly reports on personnel and unit readiness (sec. 332)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 482 of title 10, United States Code, to update and
streamline the quarterly readiness report to Congress. The
committee notes that in striking the term ``borrowed
personnel'' the committee is referring to personnel assigned to
a unit that may not have the rank, school completed, or
specialized training to be able to carry out the
responsibilities for the assigned position.
Revision to requirement for annual submission of information regarding
information technology capital assets (sec. 333)
The committee recommends a provision that would align
Department of Defense high-threshold Information Technology
Capital Asset reporting with the Department's Major Automated
Information Systems reporting and its Exhibit 300 reporting to
the Office of Management and Budget.
Modification of annual corrosion control and prevention reporting
requirements (sec. 334)
The committee notes that the military departments'
corrosion control and prevention executives coordinate with the
Department of Defense's (DOD) Corrosion Policy and Oversight
Office on their respective strategic plans. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has found that linking the military
departments' strategic goals to those of the DOD should improve
corrosion control and prevention efforts. However, the
committee notes that the GAO also found that the military
departments varied in the extent that their strategic plans
show clear linkage to the 10 goals and objectives included in
the DOD corrosion prevention and mitigation strategic plan. The
committee notes the Army's strategic plan showed clear linkage
to all 10 of the goals and objectives. Additionally, the
committee notes that the GAO found no inconsistencies with DOD
Instruction 5000.67, which establishes policy, assigns
responsibilities, and provides guidance for managing programs
to prevent or mitigate corrosion.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that
would modify section 903(b)(5) of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 110-417;
10 U.S.C. 2228 note) to update the military departments'
strategic plans with performance measures and show clear
linkage to the DOD's overarching goals and objectives as
described in the DOD's strategic plan for corrosion control and
prevention.
Subtitle E--Limitations and Extension of Authority
Limitation on funding for United States Special Operations Command
National Capital Region (sec. 341)
The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)
testified before the committee that ``USSOCOM is placing
greater emphasis on its presence in the National Capital Region
(NCR) to better support coordination and decision making with
interagency partners. Thus, USSOCOM began to consolidate its
presence in the NCR in early 2012. This is not a duplication of
effort. We are focused instead on consolidating USSOCOM
elements in the Washington, DC region under the leadership of
the USSOCOM Vice-Commander--who resides in Washington.'' To
support this effort, the budget request includes $10.0 million
in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, to support the
USSOCOM-NCR.
The committee supports efforts by USSOCOM to better
coordinate its activities with interagency and multinational
partners, most of whom are physically located in the NCR.
However, the committee believes that current fiscal constraints
dictate that the goals of the USSOCOM-NCR be achieved in a
resource and manpower neutral manner. While this is the first
year USSOCOM has requested funding for the USSOCOM-NCR in its
budget request, USSOCOM-NCR activities have been underway for
more than a year resulting in significant expenditures for
leased facilities and contract support. To date, the committee
has not received sufficient detail on the implementation plan
for the USSOCOM-NCR and its associated costs, particularly in
future years.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would
prohibit the expenditure of any funds for the USSOCOM-NCR until
30 days after the Secretary of Defense provides the
congressional defense committees a report which describes, at a
minimum: (1) the purpose of the USSOCOM-NCR; (2) the activities
to be performed by the USSOCOM--NCR; (3) an explanation of the
impact of the USSOCOM-NCR on existing activities at USSOCOM
headquarters; (4) a detailed breakout, by fiscal year, of the
staffing and other costs associated with the USSOCOM-NCR over
the future years defense program; (5) a description of the
relationship between the USSOCOM-NCR and the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-
Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC); (6) the role of the ASD SOLIC
in providing oversight of USSOCOM-NCR activities; and (7) any
other matters the Secretary deems appropriate.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends a budget
item related to the use of contractors to support the USSOCOM-
NCR.
Limitation on funding for Regional Special Operations Coordination
Centers (sec. 342)
The budget request included $14.7 million for the
establishment of Regional Special Operations Coordination
Centers (RSCC) in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide. The
committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the
expenditure of any funds for the RSCCs in fiscal year 2014 and
direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, in coordination with the
Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, not later than
September 30, 2013, to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees outlining, at a minimum: (1) the requirement
and justification for the establishment of RSCCs; (2) the
number and locations of planned RSCCs; (3) the projected cost
to establish and maintain the proposed RSCCs in future years;
(4) the relevance to and coordination with other multilateral
engagement activities and academic institutes supported by the
geographic combatant commanders and State Department; and (5)
any legislative authorities that may be needed to establish
RSCCs.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends no
funding for the RSCCs in fiscal year 2014.
Limitation on availability of funds for Trans Regional Web Initiative
(TRWI) (sec. 343)
The budget request included $19.7 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Trans Regional Web
Initiative (TRWI), a contractor operated and U.S. Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM) funded strategic level military
information support operations program. Under the TRWI, USSOCOM
establishes and maintains news and information websites in
support of certain geographic combatant command's (GCC)
countering violent extremism objectives.
The committee supports the efforts of USSOCOM and the GCCs
to conduct phase zero operations to counter violent extremism,
but believes that the costs to operate the websites developed
under the TRWI are excessive. The effectiveness of the websites
is questionable and the performance metrics do not justify the
expense. The committee believes USSOCOM resources are better
used to support tactical and operational military information
support activities. The committee acknowledges the utility of
strategic level information operations activities, but believes
they would be more appropriately funded and managed by the
State Department and other relevant U.S. Government agencies,
with support from USSOCOM, as necessary.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would
prohibit the Secretary of Defense from expending any funds in
OMDW to continue the TRWI and the associated websites.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms (sec.
351)
Section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84) required the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to review the performance,
interoperability, costs, logistics, and patents involved in the
services' combat camouflage and utility uniforms. In April
2010, the GAO reported that since 2002, the services continued
to develop unique combat and utility uniforms. The committee
notes that prior to 2002, the services wore the same pattern
and family of combat camouflage and utility uniforms. The GAO
found no performance standards for specific combat
environments, no criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of
camouflage patterns, and no requirements for the services to
test interoperability between their uniforms and other tactical
gear, despite the DOD establishing a Joint Clothing and
Textiles Governance Board in 2008.
The committee remains concerned that until this year, the
Department of the Navy chose to equip its sailors and marines
with different types of combat uniforms, providing
significantly different levels of protection in combat
environments.
The GAO recently identified that the DOD's fragmented
approach to developing and acquiring combat uniforms could be
more efficient, better protect service members, and result in
up to $82.0 million in development and acquisition cost savings
through increased collaboration among the military services.
The committee continues to strongly urge the secretaries of
the military departments to explore additional methods for
sharing uniform technology across the services as they develop
their combat and utility uniforms. The committee continues to
believe that combat and utility uniforms should incorporate the
most advanced levels of protection and should be available to
all men and women in uniform, regardless of the military
service in which they serve.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that
would direct the Secretary of Defense to reduce the separate
development and fielding of service-specific combat and
camouflage utility uniforms in order to collectively adopt and
field the same combat and camouflage utility uniforms for use
by all members of the armed forces. The committee notes that
the recommended provision would also restrict any military
service from preventing another military service from
authorizing the use of any combat or camouflage utility
uniform. Additionally, after the date of enactment of this Act,
each military service would be prohibited from adopting new
designs for combat and camouflage utility uniforms, including
uniforms reflecting changes to the fabric and camouflage
patterns used in current combat and camouflage utility
uniforms, unless the services adopt a uniform currently in use,
all services adopt the same combat or camouflage utility
uniform, or the Secretary of Defense determines that unique
circumstances or requirements justify an exception to the
policy.
Authorization to institute a centralized, automated mail redirection
system to improve the delivery of absentee ballots to military
personnel serving outside the United States (sec. 352)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $4.5 million from
defense-wide operation and maintenance to the Postal Service
Fund for purposes of implementing the modernization of the
United States Postal Service's mail delivery system to improve
the delivery of absentee ballots to military personnel serving
outside the United States.
Budget Items
Army readiness funding increases
The budget request included $35.0 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $888.1 million was for
maneuver units, $1.2 billion was for aviation assets, $3.5
billion was for force readiness operations support, and $1.4
billion was for land forces depot maintenance. The budget
request also included $7.0 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $712.1
million was for facilities sustainment, restoration, and
modernization (FSRM). The budget request also included $3.0
billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of
which $294.1 million was for FSRM.
The Army has identified specific amounts in these readiness
accounts that could help offset cuts as a result of
sequestration. The committee notes that these recommended
increases will improve the Army's fiscal year 2014 flying hour
program and ground operations tempo requirements and enable
units to conduct additional training to restore readiness lost
in fiscal year 2013. The committee also notes that the
recommended increase in land forces depot maintenance will
allow additional maintenance to occur on aviation assets,
ground vehicles, missiles, electronics, and post-production
software support. Additionally, the recommended increases for
FSRM will increase funding to 90 percent of the fiscal year
2014 requirement for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
Accordingly, the committee recommends increases of $195.9
million in OMA for maneuver units, $15.8 million in OMA for
aviation assets, $209.9 million in OMA for force readiness
operations support, $200.0 million in OMA for land forces depot
maintenance, $74.2 million in OMARNG for FSRM, and $36.4
million in OMAR for FSRM.
U.S. European Command funding decrease
The budget request included $35.0 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $185.0 million was for
combatant commanders core operations.
The committee is concerned that the funding increase in the
fiscal year 2014 budget request for U.S. European Command's
(EUCOM) information operations campaign is unjustified growth.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million in OMA (subactivity 138) for EUCOM.
Navy readiness funding increases
The budget request included $39.9 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $4.9 billion was for mission
and other flight operations, $1.8 billion was for fleet air
training, $35.8 million was for aircraft depot operations
support, $3.8 billion was for mission and other ship
operations, $734.8 million was for ship operations support and
training, $5.1 billion was for ship depot maintenance, $1.3
billion was for ship depot operations support, $2.6 million was
for depot operations support, and $1.9 billion was for
facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization (FSRM).
The budget request also included $1.1 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy Reserve (OMNR), of which $586.6 million was
for mission and other flight operations and $100.6 million was
for aircraft depot maintenance.
The Navy has identified specific amounts in these readiness
accounts that could help offset cuts as a result of
sequestration. The committee notes that these recommended
increases in funding will improve the Navy's fiscal year 2014
flying hour program, steaming days, depot maintenance,
training, and FSRM to restore readiness lost in fiscal year
2013.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
increases in OMN: $32.5 million for mission and other flight
operations, $11.2 million in fleet air training, $608,000 in
aircraft depot operations support, $99.5 million in mission and
other ship operations, $61.4 million in ship operations support
and training, $5.7 million in ship depot maintenance, $126.2
million in ship depot operations support, $660,000 in depot
operations support, $100.0 million in FSRM. The committee also
recommends the following increases in OMNR: $1.9 million in
mission and other flight operations and $8.9 million in
aircraft depot maintenance.
Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support
The budget request included $199.1 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for Combatant Commanders Direct Mission
Support. Of this amount, $3.0 million is for a classified U.S.
Pacific Command (PACOM) program.
The committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 million in OMN
for the development of the program at PACOM.
Marine Corps readiness funding increases
The budget request included $6.2 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $223.3 million was
for depot maintenance.
The Marine Corps has identified specific amounts in this
readiness account that could help offset cuts as a result of
sequestration. The committee notes that the recommended
increase will improve the Marine Corp's critical depot
maintenance requirement to 100 percent in order to restore
readiness lost in fiscal year 2013.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $56.0
million in OMMC for depot maintenance.
Air Force readiness funding increases
The budget request included $37.2 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.2 billion was for
primary combat forces, $1.5 billion was for air operations
training, $5.9 billion was for depot maintenance, and $1.8
billion was for facilities sustainment, restoration and
modernization (FSRM). The budget request also included $3.1
billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
(OMAFR), of which $89.7 million was for FSRM. The budget
request also included $6.5 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which $296.9
million was for FSRM.
The Air Force has identified specific amounts in these
readiness accounts that could help offset fiscal year 2013 cuts
as a result of sequestration. The committee notes that these
recommended increases in amounts will improve the Air Force's
fiscal year 2014 flying hour program, weapons systems
sustainment, training ranges, and FSRM.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMAF:
$220.0 million in primary combat forces, $30.0 million in air
operations training, $210.0 million for depot maintenance, and
$75.0 million for FSRM. The committee also recommends an
increase of $8.7 million in OMAFR for FSRM and an increase of
$28.2 million in OMANG for FSRM.
Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support
The budget request included $1.1 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for Combatant Commanders Direct
Mission Support. Of this amount, $22.4 million is for a U.S.
Central Command (CENTCOM) classified program.
The committee recommends a decrease of $22.4 million in
OMAF for this classified CENTCOM program.
Regional Special Operations Coordination Centers
The budget request included $14.7 million for the
establishment of Regional Special Operations Coordination
Centers (RSCC) in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide
(OMDW).
According to U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), the
RSCCs would be partner-led multinational organizations designed
to ``promote partner-nation SOF [Special Operations Forces]
capacity building through coordination, education, and
information sharing.'' These RSCCs would function as ``regional
operational-level hubs of the larger global SOF network to
facilitate cooperation and interoperability among partner-
nation SOF and SOF-like organizations.''
To date, the committee has not received appropriate
justification and a plan for the establishment of the proposed
RSCCs, particularly the costs to sustain RSCC operations in
future years. The committee is concerned that the RSCCs may
duplicate other efforts by the geographic combatant commanders
(GCC), their subordinate component commands, existing GCC
regional centers, and complicate diplomatic activities by the
State Department and relevant chiefs of mission. In addition,
the committee is concerned that the RSCCs as proposed by
USSOCOM would be heavily reliant on contractors for planning,
study, and engagement activities with funding for such
contractors making up nearly the entire budget request for
RSCCs in fiscal year 2014.
USSOCOM indicates that the RSCCs would be modeled, at least
in-part, on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ). The committee has been
strongly supportive of the NSHQ and its efforts to enhance the
capabilities and interoperability of NATO SOF. The efforts of
the NSHQ have been especially evident in the increased
participation and success of allied SOF in operations in
Afghanistan. While the committee agrees there are important
lessons to be learned from the NSHQ that can be applied in
other regions, the committee believes the NSHQ is a flawed
model for the proposed RSCCs. The NATO alliance is unique in
the world and the NSHQ has been built on a foundation of
longstanding multilateral agreements that underpin its
activities.
Given the concerns outlined above, the committee recommends
no funding in OMDW for the establishment of RSCCs by USSOCOM.
U.S. Special Operations Command--National Capital Region
The budget request included $10.0 million for the
establishment of a U.S. Special Operations Command--National
Capital Region (USSOCOM-NCR) office in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide.
The committee supports efforts by USSOCOM to better
coordinate its activities with interagency and multinational
partners, most of whom are physically located in the NCR.
However, the committee believes that current fiscal constraints
dictate that the goals of the USSOCOM-NCR be achieved in a
resource and manpower neutral manner. The committee is
concerned that two-thirds of the requested funding for the
USSOCOM-NCR in fiscal year 2014 would pay for contractor
support. The committee believes such a heavy reliance on
contractors to implement the USSOCOM-NCR is inconsistent with
the purpose of this effort.
Therefore, the committee recommends $2.9 million for the
USSOCOM-NCR, a reduction of $7.1 million. The committee
recommends a provision elsewhere in this title that would
require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees prior to the expenditure of
any fiscal year 2014 funds for the USSOCOM-NCR.
Department of Defense STARBASE program
The budget request included no funding for the Department
of Defense (DOD) STARBASE program. The purpose of STARBASE is
to improve the knowledge and skills of students in kindergarten
through 12th grade in science, technology, engineering, and
math (STEM) subjects, and to motivate them to explore STEM as
they continue their education. STARBASE currently operates at
76 locations in 40 states and the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, primarily on military installations. To date,
nearly 750,000 students have participated in the program.
STARBASE is a highly effective program run by our dedicated
service members and strengthens the relationships between the
military, communities, and local school districts.
The committee notes that the budget request eliminated
funding for this successful program due to a reorganization of
STEM programs throughout the Federal Government, and believes
that STARBASE should continue to be operated by DOD.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $21.7
million for the DOD STARBASE program.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency
The budget request included $788.4 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency (DSCA), of which $85.9 million is to support
the operation and maintenance budgets of the five regional
centers for security studies. The five centers serve as a forum
for bilateral and multilateral communication within a region.
Their activities range from extended academic programs to
conferences on topics such as regional security issues, defense
planning, and civilian-military relations. The committee notes
that the regional centers serve an important role in supporting
the Secretary of Defense and the geographic combatant
commanders, but the committee also notes that the budgets of
these centers continue to grow--even after the Secretary of
Defense's efficiency initiative explicitly sought to reduce
their budgets.
In addition, the DSCA budget also included $34.8 million
for the Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program (CTFP). While
the committee remains supportive of this program, the committee
is concerned about the expanding activities and increased
operating costs of the CTFP at a time of fiscal challenges. The
committee encourages the CTFP to focus its activities on: its
core counterterrorism training and education; a limited number
of regions where the threat posed by terrorism is the most
significant; and efforts to offset rising costs such as
increased use of virtual education opportunities and programs.
As such, the committee recommends an undistributed decrease
of $12.0 million to OMDW for the DSCA's budget request to
support the five regional centers and a decrease of $7.0
million for the CTFP.
The committee also directs the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy (USD(P)), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
and the geographic combatant commanders to conduct a review of
the mission, mandate, curriculum, and other activities of the
five regional centers to ensure that their ongoing and planned
activities continue to directly support the theater security
cooperation campaigns of their respective combatant commanders.
The review shall also assess whether the current organizational
construct and chain of command associated with the five
regional centers is appropriate given the recent presidential
guidance on security assistance. As part of the review, the
committee urges the USD(P) to focus particular attention on the
need to enhance engagement in areas of emerging security
interests (e.g. the area of responsibility in U.S. Africa
Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Central Command) and
promoting continued interoperability among International
Security Assistance Force partners and capturing the lessons
learned from coalition operations in Afghanistan.
Following the completion of this review--and no later than
90 days after enactment of this Act--the committee directs the
USD(P) to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The committee is aware that the Department has taken steps
to establish a governance board to enhance its ability to
oversee the centers and has set broad programmatic priorities,
but has not yet fully developed an approach for measuring the
centers' progress in meeting these priorities, including
establishing measurable goals, related performance metrics, and
a methodology for assessing performance of the centers.
Therefore, as part of the aforementioned briefing, the
committee directs the USD(P) to also provide information on the
status of its efforts to measure the centers' progress.
Funding for impact aid
The amount authorized to be appropriated for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, includes the following changes from
the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in
funding levels are discussed in greater detail in title V of
this committee report.
[Changes in millions of dollars]
Impact aid for schools with military dependent students. 25.0
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities........ 5.0
Total............................................... 30.0
Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request
The budget request included $371.6 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of Economic
Adjustment (OEA), of which $273.3 million was for water and
wastewater infrastructure improvements related to the
relocation of marines to Guam.
Given the reevaluation of the relocation of marines to
Guam, the committee remains concerned that the funds requested
for the OEA are ahead of need. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a decrease of $273.3 million in OMDW for the OEA.
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy funding decrease
The budget request included $32.9 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $66.0 million was
for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
(OUSD(P)).
In light of sequestration reductions and readiness concerns
faced by the Department, the committee is concerned by the
growth of the OUSD(P) budget request. The committee notes that
nearly 50 percent of the OUSD(P) budget is dedicated to
contractor support, which in the committee's view, is based on
past staffing paradigms and is far too great. As the Department
considers areas to make reductions within OUSD(P) to adjust for
this cut, the committee expects that the first reductions
should target the size and/or cost of the contractor workforce.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.0
million in OMDW for the OUSD(P).
Continuing support for Operation Observant Compass
The budget request included $32.9 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, of which $14.2 billion is for
classified programs. Within that amount for classified
programs, the request includes classified amounts to sustain
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support to
U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(Public Law 112-239) included funds to enhance the ISR support
to AFRICOM's Operation Observant Compass, an operation to
support the efforts of Ugandan and other regional militaries to
remove Joseph Kony and other senior leaders of the Lord's
Resistance Army from the battlefield in Central Africa.
The budget request included funds for commercial aircraft
with full motion video sensors. The committee notes that this
capability is of limited utility in regions where there is
dense canopy, and believes that the Department is paying more
than it should for this capability.
The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million to
the request for full motion video surveillance and recommends
$40.0 million to sustain the congressionally mandated
initiative.
Items of Special Interest
Additive manufacturing
The committee notes that the introduction of additive
manufacturing, also known as third dimensional (3-D) printing,
has the potential to contribute to Department of Defense (DOD)
missions and capabilities with the effective and efficient use
of lightweight materials, rapid production, and design
innovation. The committee remains concerned that the long lead
time often associated with spare parts can in some instances
take multiple years to arrive at various DOD depots.
The committee notes that the potential to use ceramic
composite materials could offer enhanced aircraft performance
over metal alloys with higher temperatures ranges, less weight,
and greater fuel efficiency. Similarly, a deployable 3-D
printing capability could enable a forward operating base with
an adaptive and onsite manufacturing capability with a reduced
logistical burden. Furthermore, the DOD is providing funding to
the recently established National Additive Manufacturing
Innovation Institute (NAMII).
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later
than February 1, 2014 on the potential benefits and constraints
of additive manufacturing, how the process could or could not
contribute to DOD missions, and what technologies being
developed at NAMII are being transitioned for DOD use.
Advanced situational awareness training
The committee understands that the Army has successfully
introduced a program to train deploying units to detect changes
in human behavior through the Advanced Situational Awareness
Training module. The committee commends the Army for continuing
to broaden and adapt its training efforts to best enable
soldiers to react to the vast array of complex and asymmetrical
threats often faced in a combat environment. The committee
notes that training to increase situational awareness imparts
enduring and important skills for individual soldiers and
units, and encourages the Secretary of the Army to consider
expanding this type of training to additional deploying units
and at the appropriate advanced leadership courses.
Air show support by the Department of Defense
The Department of Defense issued guidance in early April
2013 prohibiting all aerial demonstrations, including flyovers,
jump team demonstrations, and participation in civilian air
shows and military open houses.
Many believe that this lack of community engagement may
have negative consequences on military recruiting and local
economies. The committee recognizes that the Department had to
take serious steps in order to deal with the effects of
sequestration in fiscal year 2013.
However, the committee has been informed that there are
certain circumstances where an exception to this general policy
could provide some level of community engagement as a no-cost
addition to activities that are required for training or
readiness.
Therefore, the committee recommends that the Department of
Defense reconsider whether this policy should be enforced on a
blanket basis or whether the policy should allow for community
engagement if that engagement can be completed as a no-cost
adjunct to missions fulfilling other required operational or
training activities.
Coal-to-liquid fuel technology developments
The Department of Defense (DOD), Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act
of 2013 (Public Law 113-6) provided $20.0 million in Air Force
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) only for
research that will improve emissions of coal-to-liquid (CTL)
fuel to enable this technology to be a competitive alternative
energy resource.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a detailed spending plan to the committee for
the CTL RDT&E program no later than July 31, 2013.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to report to the
committee on the feasibility of potential technologies that
could enable coal-based fuels to meet the requirements of the
DOD consistent with section 526 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (Public Law 110-140). The report
shall also include a proposal for joint research on those
technologies that are most promising for the capture of carbon,
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and other approaches
that could enable coal-based fuels to be procured under section
526 of the EISA 2007. The DOD shall submit this report to the
committee no later than February 1, 2014.
Combatant command support agent accounting
The committee notes the Operation and Maintenance budget
justification material within the Air Force's Combatant
Commander Direct Mission Support and Combatant Commander Core
Operations (lines 130 and 140) accounts are a consolidation of
multiple combatant commands' budgets under the purview of the
Air Force as Combatant Commander Support Agent. The committee
is concerned that due to this consolidation, the justification
material lacks the level of detail necessary for this committee
to make informed budget decisions.
Accordingly, the committee directs the services to annually
deliver independent, detailed budget justification for each
combatant command they are assigned Combatant Command Support
Agent responsibility.
Comptroller General of the United States review of United States
Central Command
Since fiscal year 2001, the resources provided to U.S.
Central Command (CENTCOM) and its supporting military service
components have grown dramatically to conduct and manage wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to Department of Defense
(DOD) reports provided to Congress, the military and civilian
manpower at CENTCOM has more than doubled since fiscal year
2001 and this does not include the contractors that support the
headquarters. With the drawdown of operational forces from Iraq
and ongoing drawdown from Afghanistan, it will be important to
examine levels of headquarters manpower and mission support
costs needed by CENTCOM and its respective service component
commands to manage steady state operations.
As such, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to undertake a review of CENTCOM to include
the following items: (1) what have been the trends in manpower
and mission support costs devoted to the headquarters of
CENTCOM, subordinate commands, joint task forces, and service
component commands since 2001; (2) what steps has DOD taken to
reexamine the size and structure of the headquarters of
CENTCOM, subordinate commands, joint task forces, and service
component commands in light of the significant drawdown of
forces and operations in its area of responsibility and
changing U.S. military strategy; (3) what are the future plans
for CENTCOM and its service component commands, including any
plans to maintain headquarters in forward locations such as
Kuwait and Qatar; (4) what changes, if any, should be made to
intelligence and other defense functions that support CENTCOM
combat operations; (5) what personnel adjustments are
recommended at senior levels to right size the command
structure; and (6) any other items the Comptroller General
determines to be appropriate while conducting this review,
including relevant plans regarding right-sizing and properly
posturing manpower at headquarters for steady state post-2014.
The Comptroller General shall provide the preliminary
results of the study to the congressional defense committees by
September 30, 2013, with a final report to follow as soon as
practicable thereafter.
Consolidated guidance on equipment retrograde
The committee notes that the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Joint Staff J-4, the military services, and other
entities are developing consolidated guidance on equipment
retrograde and disposition for equipment currently deployed for
use in Operation Enduring Freedom and elsewhere throughout the
U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. The committee
notes that the consolidated guidance includes a process outline
for transferring excess defense articles (EDA) to coalition
partners via the existing Letter of Request/Letter of
Acceptance process.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Office of the
Secretary of Defense to prepare a briefing or a report to the
committee on the progress of the consolidated guidance for
equipment retrograde and EDA process no later than January 1,
2014.
Contingency basing
The committee notes the Department of Defense (DOD) issued
a directive on January 10, 2013 which established a policy and
assigned responsibility for DOD contingency basing outside the
United States. The committee is encouraged by the DOD's intent
to pursue increased effectiveness and efficiency in contingency
basing to better assist the warfighter. The committee believes
that contingency basing while often executed in an expedient
fashion, should also take into account the sustainment cost of
materials and seek opportunities to reduce the logistical and
operational burden of the warfighter.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to notify the congressional defense committees of the decision
to designate a senior official to be responsible for the
oversight of all aspects of contingency basing policy, no later
than March 1, 2014. Additionally, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to prepare a briefing or a report to the
committee no later than March 1, 2014 on the resourcing
decisions and progress made regarding the action items
published in enclosure 2 of the DOD Directive 3000.10.
Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management
The committee notes that the Defense Institute of Security
Assistance Management (DISAM) is the only dedicated institution
of the Department of Defense (DOD) for the education and
training of U.S. and foreign nation personnel involved in the
planning, management, and assessment of security cooperation
and partner capacity-building programs conducted under the
authorities of the Departments of Defense and State. DISAM is
primarily funded via the Department of State authorities, and
only in recent years has DISAM been resourced to support
training and education on the planning, management, and
assessment of DOD security cooperation efforts, including many
title 10 programs (e.g., section 1206 train-and-equip
authorities, DOD counternarcotics authorities, Joint Combined
Exchange Training, and Latin America and African Cooperation
authorities). As stated in the budget request, these title 10
programs are of particular importance to DOD in meeting the
emergent needs of the geographic combatant commanders in
support of theater security campaign plans and contingency
operations.
However, the committee notes that despite the additional
funding to incorporate title 10 authorities into the curriculum
at DISAM, security assistance officers deployed overseas remain
less informed of the flexible building partnership capacity
programs that Congress has provided to DOD over the last
decade.
As such, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to jointly conduct a full review of the security
assistance curriculum at DISAM to ensure that DOD's title 10
programs, particularly DOD's counternarcotics authorities, are
incorporated in the curriculum fully. Not later than 30 days
following completion of this review, the committee directs the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Vice Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a briefing to the
committee on their findings and recommendations.
Department of Defense and Department of Energy memorandum of
understanding to enhance energy security
The committee remains encouraged by the memorandum of
understanding (MOU) signed on July 22, 2010 by the Department
of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy concerning
cooperation in a strategic partnership to enhance energy
security. The committee notes that the MOU was to cover, but
not limited to, efforts in the areas of energy efficiency,
renewable energy, water efficiency, fossil fuels, alternative
fuels, efficient transportation technologies and fueling
infrastructure, grid security, smart grid, energy storage,
waste-to-energy, basic science research, mobile/deployable
power, small modular reactor nuclear energy, and related areas.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later
than January 1, 2014 on the progress made to date regarding the
MOU signed on July 22, 2010 to enhance energy security.
Energy metering
The committee notes that section 2828 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81)
required the Secretary of the Navy to meter Navy piers so that
the energy consumption of naval vessels while in port can be
accurately measured and captured. The committee is encouraged
by the utilities meter policy signed on April 16, 2013 which
established a Department of Defense (DOD) policy to install
advanced meters on individual DOD-owned facilities and directs
the services to develop a meter data management plan. The
committee is encouraged by the DOD's intent to improve the
management of energy and water consumption, improve mission
assurance, and increase reliability. The committee recognizes
that energy metering alone does not independently save energy
or water, which is why the committee strongly encourages the
DOD to ensure energy metering data is not only captured but
used to implement greater efficiencies, inform decisions,
optimize installation performance, and achieve results through
better practices.
Accordingly, the committee directs the secretaries of the
military departments to prepare a briefing or a report to the
committee with finalized meter data management plans with
proposed practices to achieve greater efficiencies no later
than March 1, 2014.
Energy security assessments in the Quadrennial Defense Review
The Secretary of Defense is required every 4 years to
conduct a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), pursuant to section
118 of title 10, United States Code. The QDR is intended to
provide a national defense strategy necessary to successfully
execute the full range of missions called for in the national
security strategy.
The committee believes a defense strategy should consider
assured access to energy resources as essential to the
Department of Defense's ability to project power and provide
combat capability for operations. In the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81),
energy security was defined as ``having assured access to
reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and
deliver sufficient energy to meet mission essential
requirements.''
The committee notes a forecast by the International Energy
Agency (IEA) predicts that ``by around 2020, the United States
is projected to become the largest global oil producer
(overtaking Saudi Arabia until the mid-2020s) and starts to see
the impact of new fuel-efficiency measures in transport. The
result is a continued fall in U.S. oil imports, to the extent
that North America becomes a net oil exporter around 2030.''
The IEA forecast goes on to say for all types of fuels: ``But
there is no immunity from global markets. No country is an
energy 'island' and the interactions between different fuels,
markets, and prices are intensifying.''
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to ensure that the 2013 QDR assessment includes a review of the
extent of defense resources and budgets that would be required
to successfully carry out an energy security strategy.
Foreign exchange program for Reserve Officer Training Corps cadets and
critical military language training
The committee is encouraged by the Army's efforts to
establish a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet foreign
exchange program that seeks to enhance cultural understanding,
foster regional expertise, and improve foreign language
training among cadets in the ROTC. The committee is also
encouraged by similar efforts to provide overseas professional
development training and education, including opportunities for
training in the joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and
multinational environment with partner military service members
at accredited universities. The committee recognizes the
importance of short-term overseas training events in regions
and cultures of strategic importance to the nation that could
better prepare ROTC cadets to meet the future requirements of
our combatant commanders' theater campaign plans.
Additionally, the committee encourages the Department of
Defense and the Army to provide greater oversight and
coordination to ensure the goals of these programs are in
concert with the security cooperation strategy and national
security objectives.
Full spectrum operations
The committee is encouraged by the Army and Marine Corps'
proposal to plan for training for a full spectrum of operations
in the fiscal year 2014 budget request. The committee notes
that for more than a decade the services have been consumed
with preparing and deploying forces for counterinsurgency
operations in combat, leaving little time and resources to
train for other contingencies. As combat operations decline,
the committee encourages the secretaries of the military
departments to ensure that sufficient training resources are
dedicated to full spectrum operations when preparing the fiscal
year 2015 budget request.
Government Accountability Office readiness analysis
The committee notes that the drawdown of forces first from
Iraq and now from Afghanistan presents the Department of
Defense (DOD) with a new set of challenges as it plans for an
uncertain future with fewer resources. In its January 2012
strategic guidance, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership:
Priorities for 21st Century Defense and related documents, DOD
called for a smaller, lighter, and flexible joint force able to
conduct a full range of activities but no longer sized to
conduct large and protracted stability operations. The guidance
also called for a rebalancing of forces to the Asia-Pacific
region along with the Middle East and several other changes. In
March 2013, the Secretary of Defense directed the Deputy
Secretary of Defense to work with the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to conduct a strategic choices and management
review to examine the opportunities and challenges that
underlie the defense strategy, posture, and investments,
including all past assumptions and systems. The committee notes
that shifts in strategy or assumptions can have a material
impact on the way DOD portrays its readiness and the risks it
faces.
Accordingly, to help inform the committee's oversight and
its consideration of the Department's budget request, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to review the Department's readiness and the risks DOD faces
and to report the results of this review to the congressional
defense committees. The review should specifically address, but
not be limited to:
(1) the current and historical readiness status of
each of the military services including any trends in
reported readiness;
(2) the current and historical readiness status of
each of the current geographic and functional combatant
commands, including any trends in reported readiness;
(3) the key factors that impact readiness, and how
these factors contributed to any reported changes in
readiness between March 1, 2013, when sequestration
went into effect, and the December 2013 readiness
reports; and
(4) changes in strategic and military risk levels
between 2011 and 2014, including any changes in the way
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff evaluates and
reports strategic and military risks.
The committee notes that in reporting on these four
elements, the Comptroller General may take a phased approach,
reporting on elements (1), (2), and (3) by March 15, 2014, and
reporting on element (4) 45 days after DOD delivers the annual
Chairman's Risk Assessment, as required by section 153 of title
10, United States Code, to the congressional defense
committees.
Intergovernmental support agreements with state and local governments
The committee notes that section 331 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) provided expanded authorities to the Secretary of Defense
to enter into intergovernmental service agreements with state
and local governments in order to provide, receive, or share
installation-support services if the Secretary determines that
the agreement will serve the best interests of the Department
of Defense (DOD) by enhancing mission effectiveness or creating
efficiencies or economies of scale, including by reducing
costs.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
the committee not later than February 1, 2014, regarding the
status of the use of this authority to enter into such
agreements. The report shall include:
(1) a review of the policy adopted by DOD to guide
the development of proposals to share installation
support services;
(2) a description of the structure and components of
intergovernmental agreements, including the adherence
to Federal Acquisition Regulations;
(3) guidance for delegating authority to enter into
such agreements to the installation level;
(4) a list of any proposed locations and types of
services that are being considered for the use of this
authority; and
(5) any other matters the Secretary deems
appropriate.
Light-weight ammunition project under the Defense Production Act, Title
III authority
The committee notes that under the Defense Production Act,
Title III authority, one current project is developing a
domestic production capability for light-weight polymer-based
ammunition. The committee believes that light-weight ammunition
has the potential to decrease the individual load of the
warfighter, increase mobility, decrease logistical burden, and
reduce fuel consumption in military operations. The committee
notes that traditional ammunition cartridges are produced using
metallic-based materials such as steel, copper, aluminum, or
brass. The committee understands that any new ammunition must
meet all specifications for pressure, velocity, accuracy, and
must be a drop-in replacement in terms of training, weapon
function, lethality, storage, and transportation.
Accordingly, the committee directs the secretaries of the
military departments to prepare a briefing or a report to the
committee no later than February 1, 2014 on the pursuit of
additional small arms and ammunition projects which could
enhance combat capability, reduce logistical burdens, and
improve efficiencies.
Marine Corps core depot maintenance policy
The committee understands that the Marine Corps policy on
core depot maintenance workload is currently under revision.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Marine Corps to prepare
a briefing or a report to the committee on the status and
progress of a finalized core depot maintenance policy no later
than January 1, 2014.
Meals ready to eat war reserve
The committee is concerned that the Defense Logistics
Agency's (DLA) potential reduction of its Meals Ready to Eat
(MRE) war reserve may lower production in a manner that may
negatively affect the industrial base which could threaten the
DLA's ability to respond to contingency operation capabilities
commensurate with service end strength. Therefore, the
committee directs the DLA in consultation with the services, to
develop a comprehensive strategic plan that ensures an adequate
MRE inventory for each of the services that meets both DLA and
service-specific requirements, maintains the appropriate levels
of MRE war reserves, and provides for a surge capability to
support unforeseen contingencies. The DLA shall report to the
committee on this plan no later than 90 days after the
enactment of this Act.
Mission compatibility reviews
The committee is concerned about the implementation of
section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) and the
Department of Defense's (DOD) collaboration with other involved
agencies to ensure that the development of energy sources and
the increased resiliency of the commercial electric grid may
continue to move forward while protecting the missions of
military test and training ranges and installations in the
United States. The committee urges DOD to use a consistent
standard and process pursuant to Federal Rule 32 CFR Part 211
for all mission compatibility reviews on public or private land
and to review offshore energy projects using the same process.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the
committee with a report that details the status of its review
process on each of its applicants within 90 days of enactment
of this Act.
Open pit burning of waste in Afghanistan
The committee notes with concern the recently released
report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction (SIGAR) titled, ``Forward Operating Base
Salerno: Inadequate Planning Resulted in $5 Million Spent for
Unused Incinerators and the Continued Use of Potentially
Hazardous Open-Air Burn Pit Operations,'' dated April 2013. In
the report the SIGAR concluded, among other things, that
Forward Operating Base (FOB) Salerno in Afghanistan constructed
two waste incinerators that it has not and will not use. As a
result, the FOB Salerno continues to use open pit burning to
dispose of waste at the base.
Over the past several years, the committee has been
concerned about the use of open pit burning to dispose of trash
during contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan because
of the potential effects the smoke from these pits can have on
the health of personnel in the vicinity. As the SIGAR report
sets forth, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) regulation 200-2,
CENTCOM Contingency Environmental Guidance, dated January 3,
2011, requires that when a base exceeds 100 U.S. personnel for
90 days, it must develop a plan for installing waste disposal
technologies, such as incinerators, so that open pit burning
operations can cease. The SIGAR report shows that, despite
efforts to eliminate open pit burning in favor of incinerators
and other methods, some of those efforts have failed and open
pit burning continues at some locations.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
of the House of Representatives by September 30, 2013, on the
efforts to reduce reliance on open pit burning of waste at
operating bases in Afghanistan. The report shall include:
(1) a list of bases that have functioning
incinerators installed and in use;
(2) for those bases that do not have functioning
incinerators in place, an explanation for each as to
why incinerators are not in use;
(3) a list of all bases or camps in Afghanistan at
which the U.S. armed forces use open pit burning as the
primary means of disposing of waste;
(4) a plan for how the Secretary intends to bring
operating bases in Afghanistan into full compliance
with Department of Defense regulations and CENTCOM
regulations regarding waste disposal; and
(5) an assessment of incinerator technologies that
are available to the Department of Defense for use in
Afghanistan, including any such incinerator
technologies that could also contribute to energy
production, and any other waste-to-energy strategies.
Organizational clothing and equipment
The committee notes that a Department of Defense Inspector
General (DOD IG) report dated February 22, 2013 found that over
the last six years inadequate tracking and recovery procedures
resulted in a loss of approximately $20.0 million in unreturned
organizational clothing and equipment (OCIE) for redeploying
civilians and contractors. The committee notes that this is the
second report since 2010 regarding a lack of control over the
tracking and recovery of OCIE.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later
than February 1, 2014 on the corrective action taken, including
a time-phased plan with measurable goals and metrics, to
address the recommendations in report number DODIG-2013-050
regarding OCIE recovery from civilians and contractor
employees.
Policies and procedures in handling of hazardous material shipments
The committee notes that the Comptroller General of the
United States is in the process of conducting a comprehensive
review of the policies and procedures 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), including the
review of Transportation Protective Services (TPS) safety
standards for commercial surface carriers transporting
dangerous or sensitive cargo on public highways within the
United States. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to ensure that commercial TPS carrier safety
performance standards measured by the Compliance, Safety,
Accountability (CSA) Safety Measurement System (SMS) are not
altered to less stringent safety standards during the duration
of the Comptroller General review.
Readiness concerns under sequestration
The committee recognizes that the implementation of
sequestration cuts to the Department of Defense (DOD) as a
result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 poses significant risk
to the readiness, training, and operational capability of our
military forces. The committee remains concerned that the
sequestration in fiscal year 2013, and the threat of
sequestration in fiscal year 2014 and beyond forces the DOD to
cutback combat training exercises, flying hours, steaming
hours, and other military training. Other impacts include
cancelling and delaying contracts, civilian employee furloughs,
civilian hiring freezes, reductions or eliminations of
temporary and term employees, deferred facilities maintenance,
and the cancelling or postponing of maintenance for ships,
aircraft, ground vehicles, and facilities. Additionally, many
investment, acquisition, and research and development programs
will be negatively impacted if sequestration remains in place.
The committee understands from testimony by Department
witnesses that the services have already reduced, canceled, or
deferred a number of training exercises and scheduled
maintenance activities as a result of the sequestration cuts.
The Chief of Staff of the Army testified that the Army has
``curtailed training for 80 percent of the force, canceled six
brigade combat training center rotations, and cut 37,000 flying
hours, initiated termination of 3,100 temporary employees,
canceled third and fourth quarter depot maintenance, and are
planning to furlough its valued civilian work force.'' The
committee understands that along with a higher-than-expected
operating tempo in Afghanistan, the Army has an $8.3 billion
shortfall for the last 6 months of fiscal year 2013 in the base
budget and a $7.8 billion shortfall to overseas contingency
operations. The committee notes that by the end of September
2013, only one-third of the Army's Active Duty units are
expected to have acceptable readiness ratings.
The Chief of Naval Operations testified that the Navy plans
to ``reduce intermediate-level ship maintenance, defer an
additional 84 aircraft and 184 engines for depot maintenance,
and defer eight of 33 planned depot-level surface ship
maintenance availabilities'' and that ``by the end of fiscal
year 2013, a majority of our non-deployed ships and aviation
squadrons--nearly two thirds of the fleet--will be less than
fully mission capable and not certified for major combat
operations.'' The committee understands the Navy faces a $4.1
billion operation and maintenance (O&M) shortfall and has
deferred $1.2 billion in facilities maintenance.
The committee understands that the Marine Corps face a
$775.0 million shortfall in O&M during fiscal year 2013 as a
result of sequestration. The Commandant of the Marine Corps
testified that, ``sequestration in fiscal year 2014 will mean
that more than half of our non-forward-deployed ground and
aviation units will have readiness ratings of C3 or below.''
The Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps testified that,
``44 scheduled aircraft depot inductions across all types,
models, and series . . . will not occur as a result of
sequestration reduction to the fiscal year 2013 budget.''
Additionally, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps
predicted that a year from now, air squadrons will have only
about half of their aircraft ready.
The Secretary of the Air Force testified that
sequestration, ``required approximately $10.0 billion in
reductions to be taken in the last seven months of fiscal year
2013'' and ``impacts include reductions in weapons systems
sustainment that will delay necessary maintenance, increase
costs, and take perhaps 2 to 3 years to recover from repair
backlogs.'' The Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force testified
that the Air Force has, ``already ceased operations for one-
third of our fighter and bomber force'' and ``will force us to
induct 60 less airplanes and 35 less engines into depots'' and
``forced us to reduce approximately 200,000 flying hours in the
last 6 months of the year'' and to cut ``220 energy projects in
facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization'' due to
sequestration.
The committee believes that sequestration cuts to the DOD
are arbitrary and irrational. The committee notes that
continued budget uncertainty further jeopardizes the DOD's
ability to defend our Nation. Sequestration cuts increase
operational and strategic risk by deferring vital maintenance
and cancelling necessary training, and will cost the Nation
more over time to recover from this damage.
Report by Installation Command on Kwajalein Atoll
The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command recently
signed a Memorandum of Understanding to have U.S. Army
Installation Command maintain certain infrastructure at the
Kwajalein Atoll. The committee is pleased with bringing the
expertise of the Installation Command to help manage certain
aspects of the Atoll's infrastructure. However, given the
unique and important nature of test facilities at the Atoll and
its remoteness, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to report on the Installation Command's long-term management
plan for the Atoll. The report shall be due not later than
April 30, 2014.
Report on the identification of a hollow force
The committee recognizes that the implementation of
sequestration cuts to the Department of Defense (DOD) as a
result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, poses significant
risk to the readiness, training, and operational capability of
our military forces and the potential of a hollow force.
Accordingly, not later than February 1, 2014, the Secretary
of Defense shall, in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, submit to the committee a report on criteria and means
for identifying the existence of a so-called ``hollow force''.
The report shall include a definition of what constitutes a
hollow force for each branch of the Armed Forces and a
description of the criteria and metrics used to assess the
existence and extent of a hollow force. The report shall also
include for each military department, an assessment whether,
and if so to what extent, its operating forces are hollow as
determined using the above-cited criteria and metrics, and if
such operating forces are hollow, a mitigation plan to restore
those forces to an acceptable level of readiness such that they
no longer meet the definition of a hollow force. The report
shall also explain how the Department will use the Defense
Readiness Reporting System and other readiness assessment and
reporting systems to monitor and manage risk related to the
hollowing of operating forces.
The committee notes that each Quarterly Readiness Report to
Congress, as required by section 482 of title 10, United States
Code, shall include a description and explanation for each
service with respect to evidence and management of risk of
operating forces becoming or having become hollow.
The committee also directs the Comptroller General to
review the report required above and not later than March 15,
2014, provide the congressional defense committee as assessment
of the elements of the report as established above.
Lastly, the committee notes that the report shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
Review of defense headquarters and combatant command resources
The committee notes the significant growth in the
geographic combatant commands over the past decade and is
concerned that the Department of Defense (DOD) should take
steps to ensure adequate oversight of those commands. In its
May 2013 report titled ``Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to
Periodically Review and Improve Visibility of Combatant Command
Resources'' (GAO-13-293), the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) found significant growth in the resources being devoted
to the geographic combatant commands and weaknesses in the
processes used by DOD to periodically evaluate the size and
structure of the geographic combatant commands, as well as
limitations in the information used to oversee the commands.
The report also brought into focus a longstanding concern of
the committee about DOD's reporting to Congress; specifically,
the report found that congressional oversight may be hampered
because current budget justification documents do not specify
the personnel and budget resources being devoted to each
combatant command, among other limitations.
The trends reported by the Comptroller General are
concerning in light of DOD's recent efforts to reduce
headquarters and other overhead. Over the past decade
(excluding U.S. Central Command due to the large-scale
operations in that area of responsibility over the period), the
geographic combatant commands authorized positions grew by
nearly 50 percent and included more than 10,000 military and
civilian positions in fiscal year 2012, plus an unknown number
of supporting contractors and temporary personnel. Since 2008,
their supporting service component commands grew by about 30
percent to about 7,800 authorized positions in fiscal year
2012. The cost to operate and support the commands has also
ballooned. After adjusting for inflation, the costs to operate
and support the headquarters of the combatant commands more
than doubled since 2007 and now totaled more than $1.1 billion
annually. Costs to operate and support the headquarters of the
service component commands also increased substantially since
2007 and totaled more than $600.0 million annually.
GAO made four recommendations to improve processes for
evaluating requirements and provide better visibility of
personnel and resources. The committee was pleased to see that
DOD concurred with three of the four recommendations, including
providing region-by-region resource breakdowns in future budget
justification documents. However, the Joint Staff non-concurred
with a key recommendation that it take an active role in
overseeing the size and structure of the combatant commands,
including periodic reviews to ensure that the resources being
devoted to the commands are commensurate with their assigned
missions and priorities.
The committee urges the DOD to take steps to implement all
of the recommendations of GAO and looks forward to reviewing
the future budget justifications provided by DOD. If the
Department concludes that the Joint Staff is the wrong entity
to undertake periodic reviews and ensure that staffing and
resource levels are appropriate, the committee directs the
Secretary to establish alternative mechanisms for providing
such oversight on a periodic basis.
Small modular reaction study
The committee continues to be concerned about the
survivability, sustainability, and significant logistical costs
of fuel and water associated with the support of deployed
personnel at remote forward operating bases. The availability
of deployable, cost-effective, regulated, and secure small
modular reactors with a modest output electrical power (less
than 10 megawatts) could improve combat capability and improve
deployed conditions for the Department of Defense (DOD).
The committee understands the pursuit of such an endeavor
invites ample concerns, not limited to: technical feasibility,
policy oversight and regulation, robust safety and secure
design features, logistics and resources, proliferation
concerns, life cycle costs, deployment policies and
transportability, personnel costs, and lessons learned from
recent combat operations.
Therefore, the committee directs the DOD to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees on the challenges,
operational requirements, constraints, cost, and life cycle
analysis for a small modular reactor of less than 10 megawatts
no later than January 1, 2015.
Tungsten rhenium wire for Department of Defense requirements
The committee is aware that the manufacturing of tungsten
and molybdenum powders, including tungsten rhenium (WRe) wire,
is used in a variety of Department of Defense (DOD)
applications. The committee is aware that currently there are
not suitable substitutes available for WRe wire.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to report to the congressional defense committees no later than
February 1, 2014, with a determination as to whether DOD has a
sufficient supply of WRe wire to support DOD requirements. If
not, the Secretary shall also submit a mitigation plan to
ensure that DOD has a sufficient supply of WRe wire to support
its requirements.
Unfunded requirements from the service chiefs
The committee remains concerned, particularly in light of
sequestration, that after more than a dozen years of combat
operations and high operations tempo, backlogs of deferred
depot maintenance remain unexecuted. The committee understands
that the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to face
significant challenges with respect to competing budget
priorities. The committee notes that a continued failure to
address the depot maintenance backlog will jeopardize and erode
materiel readiness, further reduce the expected service life of
DOD equipment, increase long-term sustainment costs, and
further increase strategic risk for the Nation.
Despite this depot maintenance backlog, DOD continues to
underfund critical readiness accounts. In past years, the
committee has been able to provide additional support and
funding for DOD through unfunded requirements lists submitted
by the service chiefs.
The committee continues to strongly urge DOD to identify
and provide a list of service-specific unfunded requirements
with each fiscal year's budget request.
United States Africa Command
United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) is the smallest of
the Department of Defense's regionally-focused combatant
commands with fewer than 5,000 service members on the continent
of Africa, 54 countries and over 12 million square miles. The
United States no longer has the luxury of ignoring Africa; and
AFRICOM, while still a relatively new combatant command, has
been thrust to the forefront of our Nation's security
interests. Terrorist groups, including some affiliated with al
Qaeda, are growing in numbers and capability, and have expanded
their areas of operation. Many of our partners in the region,
however, still lack the capacity to effectively combat these
organizations and require further support. AFRICOM will be a
vital component to this effort.
Despite the challenges within its area of responsibility
and its massive size, AFRICOM suffers from persistent resource
shortfalls. It has no assigned forces, lacks sufficient
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and mobility
support to meet theater requirements, and must rely on manpower
from United States Central Command and United States European
Command. This committee understands the need to properly
resource AFRICOM and supports its efforts to build partnerships
and combat the terrorist threat posed by violent extremists
filtering down to Africa in response to successful U.S. and
multilateral operations in other regions.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2014, as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 Change from
FY 2013 -------------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2014 FY 2013
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army....................................... 552,100 520,000 520,000 0 -32,100
Navy....................................... 322,700 323,600 323,600 0 900
Marine Corps............................... 197,300 190,200 190,200 0 -7,100
Air Force.................................. 329,460 327,600 327,600 0 -1,860
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.............................. 1,401,560 1,361,400 1,361,400 0 -40,160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee supports the Department of Defense (DOD)
fiscal year 2014 end strength request for active forces, but
remains concerned about the impact the drawdown is having on
service members and their families. The committee urges the
services to use involuntary measures sparingly, especially for
those with significant years of service but who are not yet
eligible for retirement. The committee recognizes that the
services must balance the need to reduce overall end strength
while ensuring the proper force mix, and avoiding grade and
occupational disparities where possible, which have long-term
effects that can take years to correct. In recent years,
Congress has provided authorities requested by DOD that allow
it to execute the drawdown in a measured, responsible way. The
committee expects DOD to manage the drawdown accordingly.
The committee also remains concerned about the impact that
sequestration would have in 2014 and beyond on end strength
levels for both the active and reserve components. The Army
Chief of Staff has testified that the Army would reduce total
force end strength by an additional 100,000 soldiers should
sequestration continue beyond 2013. The committee expects that
the other services may make reductions in end strength to meet
Budget Control Act targets. The committee expects DOD to begin
planning now for how it would address end strength in 2014 and
beyond should sequestration continue in order to mitigate the
effects such potential reductions in force would have on
morale, recruiting, and retention.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2014, as shown
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 Change from
FY 2013 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2014 FY 2013
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 358,200 354,200 354,200 0 -4,000
Army Reserve.................................. 205,000 205,000 205,000 0 0
Navy Reserve.................................. 62,500 59,100 59,100 0 -3,400
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 39,600 39,600 39,600 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 105,700 105,400 105,400 0 -300
Air Force Reserve............................. 70,880 70,400 70,400 0 -480
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 841,880 833,700 833,700 0 -8,180
Coast Guard Reserve........................... 9,000 9,000 9,000 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the reserves
(sec. 412)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2014, as shown
below:
FY 2014 Change from Service FY 2013 authorized Request
Recommendation FY 2014 FY 2013 request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 Change from
FY 2013 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2014 FY 2013
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 32,060 32,060 32,060 0 0
Army Reserve.................................. 16,277 16,261 16,261 0 -16
Navy Reserve.................................. 10,114 10,159 10,159 0 45
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 14,765 14,734 14,734 0 -31
Air Force Reserve............................. 2,888 2,911 2,911 0 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 78,365 78,386 78,386 0 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the minimum number of military technicians (dual status) for
the reserve components of the Army and Air Force for fiscal
year 2014, as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 Change from
FY 2013 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2014 FY 2013
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 27,210 27,210 27,210 0 0
Army Reserve.................................. 8,395 8,395 8,395 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 22,180 21,875 21,875 0 -305
Air Force Reserve............................. 10,400 10,429 10,429 0 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 68,185 67,909 67,909 0 -276
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2014 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians
(sec. 414)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be
employed in the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2014, as
shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 Change from
FY 2013 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2014 FY 2013
Request Recommendation 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active duty for
operational support (sec. 415)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support under section 115(b) of
title 10, United States Code, for fiscal year 2014, as shown
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 Change from
FY 2013 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2014 FY 2013
Request Recommendation 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--Authorizations of Appropriations
Military personnel (sec. 421)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified
in section 4401 of division D of this Act.
Budget Item
Military personnel funding changes
The amount authorized to be appropriated for military
personnel programs in section 421 of this Act includes the
following changes from the budget request:
[Changes in millions of dollars]
Permanent Change of Station travel funding.............. -150.0
Undistributed reduction related to pace of drawdown..... -120.0
Total............................................... -270.0
The committee recommends a decrease of $150.0 million in
Military Personnel funding to reflect the recent trend of the
services underexecuting their Permanent Change of Station (PCS)
travel funding due to efficiencies resulting from longer tour
lengths, fewer moves, and lower disbursement rates. The
committee expects the services to continue to achieve
efficiencies in their PCS travel programs, particularly as the
Department fully implements the consolidated travel reform
enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
The committee also recommends a decrease of $120.0 million
in Military Personnel funding to reflect the services'
underexecution in various accounts relating to the drawdown and
the redeployment of forces from Afghanistan, including lower
officer and enlisted average strengths, subsistence costs, and
lower than budgeted deployment costs.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally
Service credit for cyberspace experience or advanced education upon
original appointment as a commissioned officer (sec. 501)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 533 of title 10, United Sates Code, to authorize
service secretaries to award constructive service credit upon
original appointment as a commissioned officer for special
experience or training in certain cyberspace-related fields and
for periods of advanced education in certain cyberspace-related
fields beyond the baccalaureate degree level. Constructive
service credited under this provision is limited to 1 year for
each year of special experience, training, or advanced
education, and 3 years total of constructive service credit.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management
Information to be provided to boards considering officers for selective
early removal from the reserve active-status list (sec. 506)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 14704(a) of title 10, United States Code, to require
service secretaries to specify the number of officers that a
selection board may recommend for removal from the reserve
active-status list, and to require the secretary to submit a
list of officers to the selection board that includes each
officer on the reserve active-status list in the same grade and
competitive category in the zone of consideration except for
officers who have been approved for voluntary retirement or who
will be involuntarily retired. This would align the statutory
procedures for a board convened to consider officers with
sufficient qualifying service for early removal from the
reserve active-status list with the procedures required for an
active-duty selective early retirement board.
Removal of restrictions on the transfer of officers between the active
and inactive National Guard (sec. 507)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the transfer of officers of the Army and Air National Guard
from the Selected Reserve to the inactive National Guard and
from the inactive National Guard to the Selected Reserve during
the period ending on December 31, 2016. This authority
currently exists for enlisted members of the Army and Air
National Guard.
Limitation on certain cancellations of deployment of reserve component
units within 180 days of scheduled date of deployment (sec.
508)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to personally approve of any decision to
cancel the deployment of a reserve component unit within 180
days of its scheduled deployment date when an active-duty unit
would be sent instead to perform the same mission, and to
notify the congressional defense committees and Governors
concerned whenever such a decision is made.
The committee notes with displeasure the decision of the
Army in March 2013 to cancel the deployment of four National
Guard units from Indiana for missions in the Horn of Africa and
the Sinai Peninsula and replace them with active component
forces for the purpose of addressing a fiscal year 2013 budget
shortfall. Two of these units, approximately 500 people, were
within 6 weeks of departure, and the remaining two units were
within 90 days of departure. All units had been mobilized in
October 2012 and had been preparing for the mission since that
time.
The Army described this as a ``short fuse decision,'' but
its impact has been wide ranging on the National Guard in
Indiana and the communities that support these service members.
Over 1,000 families lost access to TRICARE benefits, after all
had been enrolled in the TRICARE Early Eligibility Program 180
days ahead of their scheduled deployment date. Additionally,
many service members made financial decisions and commitments
based on the projected pay and benefits that accompany a year-
long deployment. Students missed deadlines to apply for
financial aid because they expected to be deployed. Some
service members had already terminated leases. Moreover, these
units will be placed at the bottom of rotation for future
deployments, and will have lost a year of eligibility for
deployment.
The committee is concerned that this type of decision
indicates a disregard for the preparation of reserve component
forces for deployment and the impact that a last-minute
cancellation of deployment, for reasons other than a change in
mission requirements, can have on morale, retention, and
training. This provision is not intended to limit the
flexibility of the Army to cancel the deployment of reserve
component forces for the purpose of replacing them with active
component units, but rather to ensure that strategic thought is
given to reserve component mobilization and the determination
to cancel a deployment.
National Guard Youth Challenge Program (sec. 509)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 509 of title 32, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense to use the National Guard to conduct the
National Guard Youth Challenge Program; and require the Chief
of the National Guard Bureau to conduct the program in such
states as the Chief considers appropriate, to prescribe the
standards and procedures for selecting program participants,
and to submit a report to Congress annually on the program.
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities
Expansion and enhancement of authorities relating to protected
communications of members of the Armed Forces and prohibited
retaliatory actions (sec. 511)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1034 of title 10, United States Code, to enhance
protections for military whistleblowers.
Enhancement of protection of rights of conscience of members of the
Armed Forces and chaplains of such members (sec. 512)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the armed
forces to accommodate individual expressions of belief of
service members unless such expressions could have an adverse
impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and
discipline.
Department of Defense Inspector General reports on compliance with
requirements for the protection of rights of conscience of
members of the Armed Forces and their chaplains (sec. 513)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) to assess and
report to Congress on the compliance of the Department of
Defense with regulations promulgated under section 533 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239), within 180 days of promulgation. The provision
would also require the DOD IG to investigate the Department's
and the services' compliance with those regulations with
respect to adverse personnel actions within 18 months of
promulgating the regulations.
Subtitle D--Member Education and Training
Authority for joint professional military education Phase II
instruction and credit to be offered and awarded through
senior-level course of School of Advanced Military Studies of
the United States Army Command and General Staff College (sec.
521)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2151(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
the School of Advanced Military Studies senior-level course at
the Army Command and General Staff College to offer joint
professional military education Phase II instruction and
credit.
Authority for Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences to
support undergraduate and other medical education and training
programs for military medical personnel (sec. 522)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 2112(a) and 2113 of title 10, United States Code, to
provide greater flexibility to the Secretary of Defense,
through the Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences (USUHS), to access existing federal resources outside
of the National Capital Region and to enable the USUHS to grant
undergraduate degrees, certificates, and certifications in
addition to advanced degrees.
Expansion of eligibility for associate degree programs under the
Community College of the Air Force (sec. 523)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 9315(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
the Community College of the Air Force to award associate
degrees to enlisted members of services other than the Air
Force who participate in joint-service medical training and
education or instructors in such joint-service medical training
and education.
Additional requirements for approval of educational programs for
purposes of certain educational assistance under laws
administered by the Secretary of Defense (sec. 524)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
new section 2006a of title 10, United States Code, to require
that educational institutions participating in certain
Department of Defense education assistance programs enter into
and comply with program participation agreements under title IV
of the Higher Education Act, and to meet certain other
standards. The provision would authorize the Secretary of
Defense to waive these requirements in certain cases.
Enhancement of mechanisms to correlate skills and training for military
occupational specialties with skills and training required for
civilian certifications and licenses (sec. 525)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
service secretaries to make information on civilian
credentialing opportunities available to members of the armed
forces during all stages of their military occupational
specialty training. The provision would also require the
service secretaries to provide information on military course
training curricula, syllabi, and materials, levels of military
advancement attained, and professional skills developed by
service members, to civilian credentialing agencies and
entities approved by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or by
state approving agencies, for the purposes of the
administration of education benefits under the purview of the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Coverage of military occupational specialties relating to military
information technology under pilot program on receipt of
civilian credentials for skills required for military
occupational specialties (sec. 526)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the military occupational specialties designated for the
purposes of the pilot program on receipt of civilian
credentials authorized by section 558 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81)
include those specialties relating to the military information
technology workforce.
Sense of Senate on the Troops-to-Teachers Program (sec. 527)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate to strongly urge the Secretary of Defense
to ensure that the Troops-to-Teachers Program is a priority of
the Nation's commitment to the higher education of members of
the armed forces, and to provide funds to the Troops-to-Teacher
Program in order to help separating members of the armed forces
and veterans who wish to transition into a teaching career.
Conforming amendment relating to renaming of North Georgia College and
State University as University of North Georgia (sec. 528)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
paragraph (6) of section 2111a(f) of title 10, United States
Code, to change the name of North Georgia College and State
University to University of North Georgia to reflect the name
change of this institution.
Subtitle E--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and Military Justice
Matters
Part I--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Prohibition on service in the Armed Forces by individuals who have been
convicted of certain sexual offenses (sec. 531)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code to prohibit the
commissioning or enlistment in the armed forces of individuals
who have been convicted of felony offenses of rape or sexual
assault, forcible sodomy, incest, or of an attempt to commit
these offenses.
Temporary administrative reassignment or removal of a member of the
Armed Forces on active duty who is accused of committing a
sexual assault or related offense (sec. 532)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 39 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
service secretaries to provide guidance for commanders
regarding their authority to make a timely determination and to
take action regarding whether a service member serving on
active duty who is alleged to have committed specified sexual
offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice should be
temporarily reassigned or removed from a position of authority
or from an assignment, not as a punitive measure, but solely
for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline within
the unit.
Issuance of regulations applicable to the Coast Guard regarding
consideration of request for permanent change of station or
unit transfer by victim of sexual assault (sec. 533)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 673(b) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
the requirement for timely determination and action on an
application by a victim of certain sexual offenses for a change
of station or unit transfer applies to the Coast Guard.
Inclusion and command review of information on sexual-related offenses
in personnel service records of members of the Armed Forces
(sec. 534)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that substantiated complaints of a sexual-related offense
resulting in a court-martial conviction, non-judicial
punishment, or administrative action be noted in the service
record of the service member, regardless of the member's grade.
The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to
prescribe regulations requiring commanders to review the
history of substantiated sexual offenses of service members
permanently assigned to the commander's facility, installation,
or unit.
Enhanced responsibilities of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Office for Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and
response program (sec. 535)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1611(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) to
require the Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Office (the Director) to: (1) oversee development and
implementation of the comprehensive policy for the Department
of Defense (DOD) sexual assault prevention and response
program; (2) serve as the single point of authority,
accountability, and oversight for the sexual assault prevention
and response program; (3) undertake responsibility for the
oversight of the implementation of the sexual assault
prevention and response program by the armed forces; (4)
collect and maintain data of the military departments on sexual
assault; (5) provide oversight to ensure that the military
departments maintain documents relating to allegations and
complaints of sexual assault involving service members and
courts-martial or trials of service members for sexual assault
offenses; (6) act as a liaison between DOD and other federal
and state agencies on programs and efforts relating to sexual
assault prevention and response; (7) oversee development of
strategic program guidance and joint planning objectives for
resources in support of the sexual assault prevention and
response program, and make recommendations on modifications to
policy, law, and regulations needed to ensure the continuing
availability of such resources; and (8) provide the Secretary
of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) any records or
documents on sexual assault in the armed forces, including
restricted reports with the approval of the individuals who
filed such reports, that are required for the purposes of the
administration of the laws administered by the Secretary of the
VA.
The provision would amend subtitle A of title XVI of the
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) to require the Director to collect
and maintain data from the services on sexual assaults
involving service members and to develop metrics to measure the
effectiveness of, and compliance with, the training and
awareness objectives on sexual assault and prevention.
The provision would also amend section 1631(f) of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(10 U.S.C. 1561 note) to require the service secretaries to
include in the case synopsis portion of the annual report
regarding sexual assaults involving members of the armed forces
the unit of each service member accused of committing a sexual
assault and the unit of each service member who is a victim of
a sexual assault.
Comprehensive review of adequacy of training for members of the Armed
Forces on sexual assault prevention and response (sec. 536)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to review the adequacy of: (1) the
training provided to service members on sexual assault
prevention and response, and (2) the training, qualifications,
and experience of each service member and Department of Defense
civilian employee assigned to a position that includes
responsibility for sexual assault prevention and response. The
provision would require the Secretary to take appropriate
corrective action to address any deficiencies identified during
these reviews and to report to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than
120 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the
findings and responsive action, including recommendations for
legislative action, on the adequacy of the training,
qualifications, and experience of each service member and
Department of Defense civilian employee assigned to a position
that includes responsibility for sexual assault prevention and
response.
Availability of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators for members of the
National Guard and the Reserves (sec. 537)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
service secretaries to ensure that each member of the National
Guard or Reserve who is the victim of a sexual assault either
during the performance of duties as a member of the National
Guard or Reserve, or is a victim of a sexual assault by another
member of the Guard or Reserve, has access to a Sexual Assault
Response Coordinator not later than 2 business days following a
request for such assistance.
Retention of certain forms in connection with Restricted Reports and
Unrestricted Reports on sexual assault involving members of the
Armed Forces (sec. 538)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 577(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the Secretary
of Defense to ensure that copies of Department of Defense Forms
2910 and 2911 filed in connection with Restricted Reports and
Unrestricted Reports of sexual assault are retained for the
longer of 50 years or the period that such forms are required
to be retained pursuant to Department of Defense Directives.
Special Victims' Counsel for victims of sexual assault committed by
members of the Armed Forces (sec. 539)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
service secretaries to implement a program to provide a Special
Victims' Counsel to service members who are victims of a sexual
assault committed by a member of the armed forces. The Special
Victims' Counsel would provide legal advice and assistance to
the victim in connection with criminal and civil legal matters
related to the sexual assault.
Sense of Congress on commanding officer responsibility for command
climate free of retaliation (sec. 540)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that: (1) commanding officers are responsible
for establishing a command climate in which sexual assault
allegations are properly managed and fairly evaluated and a
victim can report criminal activity, including sexual assault,
without fear of retaliation, including ostracism and group
pressure from other members of the command; (2) the failure of
commanding officers to maintain such a command climate is an
appropriate basis for relief from their command positions; and
(3) senior officers should evaluate subordinate commanding
officers on their performance in establishing a command climate
free of retaliation.
Commanding officer action on reports on sexual offenses involving
members of the Armed Forces (sec. 541)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
commanding officers to immediately refer to the appropriate
military criminal investigation organization reports of sexual-
related offenses involving service members in the commander's
chain of command.
Department of Defense Inspector General investigation of allegations of
retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making
protected communications regarding sexual assault (sec. 542)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1034(c)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to
require the Inspector General to review and investigate
allegations of retaliatory personnel actions for making a
protected communication regarding violations of law or
regulation that prohibit rape, sexual assault, or other sexual
misconduct.
Advancement of submittal deadline for report of independent panel on
assessment of military response systems to sexual assault (sec.
543)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 576(c)(1)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to provide that the
panel established to conduct an independent review and
assessment of the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and
adjudicate crimes involving sexual assault and related offenses
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice would terminate no
later than one year after the first meeting of the panel.
Assessment of clemency in the military justice system and of database
of alleged offenders of sexual assault as additional duties of
independent panel on review and assessment of systems to
respond to sexual assault cases (sec. 544)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 576(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the panel
established to conduct an independent review and assessment of
the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate
crimes involving adult sexual assault and related offenses
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to also include an
assessment of: (1) the opportunities for clemency provided in
the military and civilian systems, the appropriateness of
clemency proceedings in the military system, the manner in
which clemency is used in the military system, and whether
clemency in the military justice system could be reserved until
the end of the military appeals process; and (2) the means by
which the name, if known, and other necessary identifying
information of an alleged offender that is collected as part of
a restricted report of a sexual assault could be compiled into
a protected, searchable database accessible only to military
criminal investigators, Sexual Assault Response Coordinators,
or other appropriate personnel for the purpose of identifying
subjects of multiple accusations of sexual assault and
encouraging victims to make an unrestricted report to
facilitate increased prosecution of serial offenders.
Assessment of provisions and proposed provisions of law on sexual
assault prevention and response as additional duties of
independent panels for review and assessment of Uniform Code of
Military Justice and judicial proceedings of sexual assault
cases (sec. 545)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 576(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the panel
established to conduct an independent review and assessment of
the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate
crimes involving adult sexual assault and related offenses
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to assess: (1) the
effectiveness of the provisions of law on sexual assault
prevention and response in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014; and (2) the potential effectiveness
of the provisions of law on sexual assault prevention and
response that were offered but not adopted during the markup by
the Senate Committee on Armed Services of the bill to enact the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
The provision would also require the panel established to
conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial
proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and related
offenses to: (1) monitor and assess the implementation of the
provisions of law on judicial proceedings in connection with
sexual assault in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014; and (2) assess the potential effectiveness of
provisions of law on judicial proceedings that were offered but
not adopted during the markup by the Senate Committee on Armed
Services of the bill to enact the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
Assessment of compensation and restitution of victims of offenses under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice as additional duty of
independent panel on review and assessment of judicial
proceedings of sexual assault cases (sec. 546)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 576(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require the panel
established to conduct an independent review and assessment of
judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and
related offenses to assess the adequacy of the provision of
compensation and restitution for victims of offenses under the
UCMJ and to develop recommendations on expanding such
compensation and restitution.
Part II--Related Military Justice Matters
Elimination of five-year statute of limitations on trial by court-
martial for additional offenses involving sex-related crimes
(sec. 551)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Article 43 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 843
of title 10, United States Code) to eliminate the 5-year
statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for sexual
assault and sexual assault of a child.
Review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sexual offenses to
trial by court-martial (sec. 552)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
review of decisions not to refer charges of rape or sexual
assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these offenses
to trial by court-martial. In any case in which the staff judge
advocate recommends that the charges be referred to trial by
court-martial and the convening authority decides not to refer
the charges to trial by court-martial, the convening authority
would be required to forward the case file to the service
secretary for review. In cases where the staff judge advocate
recommends that the charges not be referred to trial by court-
martial and the convening authority agrees, the convening
authority would be required to forward the case file to a
superior commander authorized to exercise general court-martial
convening authority for review.
Defense counsel interview of complaining witnesses in presence of trial
counsel or outside counsel (sec. 553)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Article 46 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 846
of title 10, United States Code) to require that, upon notice
by trial counsel to defense counsel that trial counsel intends
to call a complaining witness to testify at an investigation
under Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 842
of title 10, United States Code) or court-martial, the defense
counsel must make all requests to interview the complaining
witness through the trial counsel, and, if requested by the
complaining witness, the defense counsel interview shall take
place only in the presence of the trial counsel, counsel for
the witness, or outside counsel.
Mandatory discharge or dismissal for certain sex-related offenses under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice and trial of such offenses
by general courts-martial (sec. 554)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Article 56 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
(section 856 of title 10, United States Code) to require that
the punishment for convictions of violations of Articles 120,
120b, or 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sections
920, 920b, or 925 of title 10, United States Code), include, at
a minimum, a dismissal or dishonorable discharge. The provision
would also amend Article 18 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (section 818 of title 10, United States Code) to
provide that only general courts-martial have jurisdiction over
charges of violations of articles 120, 120b, or 125 of the
UCMJ.
Limitation on authority of convening authority to modify findings of a
court-martial (sec. 555)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section 860
of title 10, United States Code) to limit the authority of a
convening authority to modify the findings of a court-martial
to qualified offenses for which the maximum sentence of
confinement that could be adjudged does not exceed 1 year and
the sentence adjudged by the court-martial does not include a
punitive discharge or confinement for more than 6 months.
Qualified offenses do not include offenses under Articles 120,
120a, 120b, and 120c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(sections 920, 920a, 920b, and 920c of title 10, United States
Code).
The provision would also require the convening authority to
explain, in writing, any action to modify the findings or
sentence of a court-martial and require the written explanation
to be made a part of the record of trial.
Participation by complaining witnesses in clemency phase of courts-
martial process (sec. 556)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Article 60(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section
860(b) of title 10, United States Code) to: (1) afford a
complaining witness an opportunity to respond to any clemency
matters submitted by an accused to the convening authority that
refer to the complaining witness; (2) afford a complaining
witness an opportunity to submit matters to the convening
authority in any case in which findings and sentence have been
adjudged for an offense involving the complaining witness; and
(3) prohibit the convening authority from considering matters
that go to the character of a complaining witness unless the
matters were presented at the court-martial.
Secretary of Defense report on modifications to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice to prohibit sexual acts and contacts between
military instructors and trainees (sec. 557)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on whether legislative action is required to modify the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10,
United States Code) to prohibit sexual acts and contacts
between military instructors and their trainees.
Sense of Senate on disposition of charges involving certain sexual
misconduct offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
through courts-martial (sec. 558)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that charges of rape, sexual assault,
forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these offenses should be
disposed of by court-martial rather than by non-judicial
punishment or administrative action, and that the disposition
authority should include in the case file a justification in
any case where these charges are disposed of by non-judicial
punishment or administrative action.
Sense of Senate on the discharge in lieu of court-martial of members of
the Armed Forces who commit sexual-related offenses (sec. 559)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that: (1) the armed forces should be
sparing in discharging in lieu of court-martial service members
who have committed rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or
attempts to commit such offenses, and should do so only when
the facts of the case clearly warrant such discharge; (2)
whenever possible, victims of these offenses should be
consulted about the discharge of the service member; (3)
commanding officers should consider the views of these victims
when determining whether to discharge service members in lieu
of court-martial; and (4) discharges of service members in lieu
of court-martial for the specified offenses should be
characterized as Other Than Honorable.
Part III--Other Military Justice and Legal Matters
Modification of eligibility for appointment as Judge on the United
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 561)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Article 142 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section
942 of title 10, United States Code) to authorize appointment
of former commissioned officers of a regular component of an
armed force as judges on the United States Court of Appeals for
the Armed Forces. However, these former officers may not be
appointed as a judge of the court within seven years after
relief from active duty.
Repeal of the offense of consensual sodomy under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (sec. 562)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (section
925 of title 10, United States Code) to prohibit forcible
sodomy and bestiality.
Prohibition of retaliation against members of the Armed Forces for
reporting a criminal offense (sec. 563)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations, not later than
120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, that prohibit
retaliation against an alleged victim or other member of the
armed forces who reports a criminal offense. The provision
would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
to Congress, not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, setting forth recommendations as to
whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice should be amended
to prohibit retaliation against an alleged victim or other
member of the armed forces who reports a criminal offense.
Extension of crime victims' rights to victims of offenses under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 564)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to recommend modifications to the Manual
for Courts-Martial and to promulgate regulations to ensure
compliance by responsible members of the armed forces and
personnel of the Department of Defense with the obligation to
enforce specified rights of victims of military crimes,
including mechanisms for ensuring that victims of military
crimes are afforded the rights in all applicable proceedings.
Modification of Manual for Courts-Martial to eliminate factor relating
to character and military service of the accused in rule on
initial disposition of offenses (sec. 565)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the discussion pertaining to Rule 306 of the Manual for
Courts-Martial be amended, not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, to strike the character and
military service of the accused from the factors a commander
should consider in deciding how to dispose of an offense.
Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family Readiness
Matters
Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that
benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 571)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$25.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) assistance
program to local educational agencies that are impacted by
enrollment of dependent children of military members and
civilian employees of the DOD.
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 572)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
impact aid payments for children with disabilities under
section 8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in
section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398),
for continuation of Department of Defense assistance to local
educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with
severe disabilities.
Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards
Matters relating to Medals of Honor and other medals of high precedence
for members of the Armed Forces (sec. 581)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 3744, 6247, and 8744 of title 10, United States Code,
to authorize the award of more than one Medal of Honor,
Distinguished Service Cross, or Distinguished Service Medal to
a person whose subsequent acts justify an additional award.
The provision would also amend sections 3744 and 8744 of
title 10, United States Code, to require that recommendations
for the award of the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service
Cross, Air Force Cross, or Distinguished Service Medal for
members of the Army and Air Force be made within 3 years and
that the award be made within 5 years after the date of the act
justifying the award. These timelines are consistent with the
timelines for comparable awards in the Navy and Marine Corps.
Recodification and revision of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard
Medal of Honor Roll (sec. 582)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 57 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a roll
designated as the ``Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard
Medal of Honor Roll'' and require the service secretaries to
record on this roll the name of each person who has been
awarded a Medal of Honor. The provision would also amend
section 1562 of title 38, United States Code, to provide for
the automatic enrollment and payment of the special pension to
living Medal of Honor recipients.
Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to Robert F.
Keiser for valor during the Korean War (sec. 583)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished Service
Cross under Section 3742 of title 10, United States Code, to
Robert F. Keiser for acts of valor during the Korean War.
Authority for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to Sergeant
First Class Patrick N. Watkins, Jr., for acts of valor during
the Vietnam War (sec. 584)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished Service
Cross under section 3742 of title 10, United States Code, to
Patrick N. Watkins, Jr., for acts of valor during the Vietnam
War.
Subtitle H--Other Matters
Additional requirements for accounting for members of the Armed Forces
and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as missing
(sec. 591)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1501 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Prisoner of War/
Missing Personnel Affairs to conduct periodic briefings for
families of missing persons on Department activities to account
for those persons.
Expansion of privileged information authorities to debriefing reports
of certain recovered persons who were never placed in a missing
status (sec. 592)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 1506 and 1513 of title 10, United States Code, to
include as privileged information, for the purposes of
personnel files maintained under the system for accounting for
missing persons, any survival, evasion, resistance, and escape
debriefing reports by certain persons returned to United States
control under a promise of confidentiality.
Items of Special Interest
Availability of Assaultive Offender's Group Treatment program
The United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB) at Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas, offers Assaultive Offender's Group
Treatment (AO) to inmates that are confined for violent
offenses. It is part of a comprehensive behavioral health
program developed to meet the unique needs of military inmates
confined at the USDB, and is tailored to address the needs of
each inmate. The AO program consists of 30 group treatment
sessions which normally meet weekly with 8-10 inmates per
group. The USDB reports that they have only been able to run
one AO group per year due to staffing limitations. There are
currently over 60 inmates on the waitlist for the program,
resulting in a wait for over two years for some inmates who may
desire to complete this program as part of their program of
rehabilitation to be considered by a service clemency and
parole board.
The committee is concerned about the long wait time for
inmates to participate in the AO program and directs the
Commandant of the USDB to assess courses of action to reduce
wait times and to provide the defense committees a report on
his assessment no later than 180 days after passage of this
act.
Combat injured military technician (dual status) retention under
Wounded Warrior Act authority
Section 10216(g) of title 10, United States Code, enacted
by section 511 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), authorizes the services
to retain military technicians (dual status) as non-dual status
technicians when losing their military membership due to
combat-related injuries. The provision was intended to ensure
that no dual status technician, required by statute to maintain
military membership in a reserve component as a condition of
their civilian employment, was unfairly treated due to injuries
sustained in combat. The committee is aware of reports that
this authority has rarely, if ever, been used despite many
military technicians having been separated or retired since
then with combat-related injuries.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
the congressional defense committees by September 1, 2013, the
following: (1) the number of dual status technicians who have
been retained as non-dual status technicians under the
authority of section 10216(g); (2) the number of dual status
technicians separated or retired with combat-related injuries
since January 28, 2008; and (3) the number of technicians so
separated or retired who qualified, or should have qualified,
for retention under section 10216(g).
Command knowledge of civilian convictions of service members for sexual
assault
The committee notes that it is possible for a service
member to commit and be convicted of sexual assault at an off-
post location without the command knowing of the conviction.
The Department of Defense primarily relies on local police or
blotter reports, periodic security clearance initiations and
renewals, and self-reporting to monitor off-post criminal
actions of service members. As a general rule, service members
are not subject to periodic criminal record checks during their
period of service unless they require a security clearance
review or initiation, or are accepted into programs where
background checks are required. This process could create a
loophole for a sexual predator to serve in the military without
the knowledge of the chain of command.
General Odierno, the Chief of Staff of the Army, addressed
these loopholes for felony or serious offenders in the a Senate
Committee on Armed Services hearing on sexual assault on June
4, 2013, stating: ``Background checks are done, but the ability
to identify sexual offenders is certainly not 100 percent right
now, and we have to do a better job of doing that. We need help
with having a better database, but also making sure we're
scrutinizing those as we go forward.'' Accordingly, as the
military contends with the serious issue of identifying and
prosecuting sexual predators, the committee expresses concern
that service members with sexual assault convictions could
continue to serve because these convictions are undetected by
the chain of command.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a report by no later than December
31, 2013, examining: (1) the scope and prevalence of the
problem and whether there are existing loopholes and
shortcomings in the current system; (2) the frequency and
methods by which the military conducts criminal record checks
after enlistment or swearing-in to the armed forces; (3)
policies that direct members of the armed forces to self-report
criminal arrests and convictions to the chain of command, and
any penalties associated with failure to do so; and (4)
procedures for submitting names of service members convicted of
sexual offenses to the National Sex Offender Public Registry.
Comprehensive Review of Department of Defense coordination and
incorporation of civilian law enforcement best practices in
sexual assault prevention and response
The civilian law enforcement community has invested
significant time and resources in developing proven strategies
to effectively respond to sexual crimes. The Department of
Justice regularly publishes established best practices
incorporating the experience of thousands of federal, state,
and local officers as well as academic experts.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate
the Department of Defense's current policies and procedures
regarding sexual assault prevention and response to identify
ways to better incorporate civilian law enforcement best
practices, particularly regarding training, investigation, and
prosecution of sexual crimes.
Department of Defense child development center personnel
The committee commends the Secretary of Defense, following
troublesome allegations of abuse at two Army Child Development
Centers, for directing a Department-wide audit of all
Department of Defense (DOD) providers who have regular contact
with children in DOD child development, school age care, and
youth programs, and a comprehensive review and evaluation by
each of the military services of the actual background check
documentation on file for each individual, employee, and
volunteer for compliance by the appropriate authorities in
accordance with applicable DOD and service policies. However,
the committee has yet to see the results of that review.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a report by no later than October
1, 2013, examining:
(1) any changes to DOD child development center
hiring or personnel practices the Secretary determines
are necessary based on the review;
(2) steps DOD is taking to implement any necessary
changes;
(3) a description of the hiring practices at DOD
child development centers, to include criminal
background checks, credential verification procedures,
and interview processes; and
(4) an assessment of the contract with Child Care
Aware of America (formerly known as the National
Association of Child Care Resource and Referral
Agencies) regarding hiring and termination procedures
and referrals.
Department of Defense reports on sexual assault
The committee is concerned with the use of the imprecise
terms ``sexual assault'' and ``unwanted sexual contact'' to
present statistics on the number of incidences of rape, sexual
assault, forcible sodomy, and other unwanted sexual acts
perpetrated against members of the military that are reported
in both the annual Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Office (SAPRO) report on sexual assaults in the military and
the Armed Forces Workplace and Gender Relations Survey (WGRS).
The 2012 SAPRO report notes that there were 3,374 reports of
sexual assault in fiscal year 2012, but defines the term
``sexual assault'' as ``a range of crimes, including rape,
sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual
contact, nonconsensual sodomy, and attempts to commit these
offenses.'' In the Uniform Code of Military Justice, sexual
assault is a specific serious offense that carries a possible
sentence of up to 30 years confinement, but the annual SAPRO
report uses the term sexual assault to refer to the range of
sexual offenses.
Similarly, the WGRS measured the incidences of ``unwanted
sexual contact'', defined as ``intentional sexual contact that
was against a person's will or which occurred when the person
did not or could not consent'', finding that 6.1 percent of
female respondents and 1.2 percent of male respondents
experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012. The Department
then used these figures to estimate that 26,000 incidences of
unwanted sexual contact occurred in 2012, but provided no
numbers on the estimated number of rapes, sexual assaults, and
other unwanted sexual acts that occurred.
Using the imprecise terms ``sexual assault'' and ``unwanted
sexual contact'' to refer to a range of sexual offenses creates
confusion about the types of unwanted sexual acts that are
being perpetrated against members of the military. To address
this issue, the committee directs the Department to modify the
language used in the annual SAPRO report and the WGRS to
clearly report the number of instances of each type of unwanted
sexual act, to include rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy,
and attempts to commit those acts.
General and flag officer billets
The committee recommends that, in concert with any plans to
streamline the Department of Defense command, management, and
headquarters support staff organizations, the Secretary of
Defense develop a plan to ensure that the number of general and
flag officer billets are adjusted appropriately to achieve a
proper ratio relative to end strength and complies with
guidance in section 525, title 10, United States Code.
Medical management of sexual assault cases
The committee notes that the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Health Affairs, in a memorandum dated April 15, 2013,
provided Department of Defense (DOD) guidance to each of the
services on medical management of sexual assault cases based on
the revision to DOD Instruction 6495.02, ``Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures,'' to include
provision of standardized, timely, and comprehensive medical
care. 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 not later than February 1, 2014
outlining the Department's plan to ensure that health care
providers are appropriately trained to manage the acute and
long-term health needs of victims of sexual assault, accredited
as necessary to properly handle evidence collected from victims
of sexual assault, and to ensure that these trained health care
providers are located in military treatment facilities based on
the Department's projection of needs.
Military dependent suicides
The committee remains extremely troubled by the numbers of
suicides in each of the services in both the active duty and
the reserve components, and has recently been informed by the
National Military Family Association and other military family
advocacy groups that anecdotal reports indicate the number of
suicides committed by dependents of service members is
increasing. However, the committee notes that the Department of
Defense does not currently track the suicides of military
family members.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report no later than February 1, 2014, to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the Department's current capabilities to
track the suicides of military dependents of both active duty
and reserve component members, the feasibility and advisability
of tracking such suicides, a description of any impediments to
the ability to track suicides by military family members, and a
description of current resiliency programs provided to family
members by each of the services.
Prohibition of sale of sexually explicit material
The committee notes that section 2495b(a) of title 10,
United States Code, prohibits the sale or rental of sexually
explicit material on Department of Defense property. The
committee has been made aware that despite this prohibition,
sexually explicit material remains available for sale on
certain Department of Defense premises. The committee is
concerned about the impact this material may have on the health
and wellness of military service members and their families.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the service chiefs, to submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report, within 180 days of the enactment of
this Act, that outlines the Department's efforts to comply with
the statutory prohibition.
Report to Congress on the implementation of the recommendations made by
the Military Leadership Diversity Commission
The Military Leadership Diversity Commission established in
section 596 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) made
recommendations for improving diversity within the armed forces
after conducting a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of
policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and
advancement of minority members of the armed forces.
It has been 2 years since the Commission made these
recommendations. The committee continues to be interested in
increasing diversity in the armed forces and the services'
progress in implementing the Commission's recommendations.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess
the services' progress in implementing the Commission's
recommendations and to report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on that
assessment by December 31, 2013.
Report on whereabouts of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl
Not later than September 30, 2013, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the congressional defense committees an
unclassified report, with a classified annex, regarding the
status of the search for U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl who
was captured by the Taliban on June 30, 2009, in Paktika
Province in eastern Afghanistan. The report should include
Sergeant Bergdahl's suspected whereabouts, his likely captors,
and what efforts are being made to find and recover him.
Retention, career progression, and promotion opportunities for female
members of the Armed Forces
The committee notes and is encouraged by the efforts of the
Department of Defense to expand service opportunities for women
in the military. In February, the Secretary of Defense
rescinded the ground-combat exclusion policy and required that
the services open all positions to service by women by January
1, 2016, or request an exception to policy by that date to keep
certain positions closed, an exception that must be approved by
the Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The
Department is moving toward an assignment system that is
gender-neutral and performance-based, and the committee
supports that effort and encourages the Department to continue
to work toward full integration of women in all military
occupations to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with
military capabilities required for our Nation's defense.
Even with the increasing service opportunities for women,
however, the committee remains concerned that women may not
always be afforded the maximum opportunity to serve a full
career. The committee is particularly interested in addressing
the balance between career and personal goals of all service
members--both men and women--and how the ability of a service
member to meet his or her personal goals may impact a decision
to remain in military service, while being mindful of the
military mission and the core need for all service members to
be fully trained, ready, and available for deployment.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a report by no later than December
31, 2013, examining:
(1) retention rates and career progression
opportunities for female service members;
(2) causes of voluntary mid-career separations,
especially those related to childbirth, to include
disparities in service policies on postpartum leave,
deferral from deployment, and service member
accommodation for infant nursing; and
(3) how the Department might better accommodate
service members in a manner consistent with military
necessity and without degrading unit readiness, to
include consideration of wider use of temporary
assignments to the reserve components or other career
intermission programs as a way to allow service members
to pursue personal or family goals while maintaining a
commitment to a full military career.
Sexual assault first responder training
The committee continues to be concerned with sexual
assaults in the military. The effect on good order and
discipline of a unit is immeasurable. It ruins the trust that
individuals have in the institution. One of the aspects that is
vital in order to hold confidence in the reporting system for
sexual assaults is to ensure that the sexual assault response
coordinators, victim advocates, health care personnel, law
enforcement personnel, judge advocates, and chaplains are
trained on topics to include available medical and mental
health treatment options. A Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report from January 2013 indicates that some first
responders interviewed were unsure of the health care services
available to sexual assault victims at their respective
locations.
The GAO also reported that sexual assault response
coordinators, victim advocates, and health care personnel
differed in their understanding of where to take sexual assault
victims for forensic examinations. Given that the quality of
this evidence diminishes as the period of time from the actual
assault increases, this could become a serious issue.
The committee understands and appreciates that the
Department is focusing additional resources to increase the
numbers of first responders. This is a positive step. However,
it is also important that first responders thoroughly
understand the options available in general as well as at their
specific duty location.
Therefore, the committee directs the secretaries of each of
the military departments to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees within 90 days of enactment of
this Act with details on how each service will ensure that
first responders are adequately trained to be able to deal with
sexual assault victims. The report should also indicate how
each service will keep track and enforce service specific
refresher training requirements.
By December 1, 2013, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
a report to the congressional defense committees indicating the
number of first responders who should have had either initial
or refresher training during the fiscal year and how many
actually completed this required training. The statistics
should be broken out by service.
Suicide prevention screening
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense
(DOD) and each of the military services have made suicide
prevention a priority. In addition, Congress has attempted to
enhance DOD efforts to address military suicides. Even though
military suicide rates are lower than comparable civilian
suicide rates, work must be done in the area of early detection
of mental health conditions and suicide risk. The committee
notes that many of the existing programs designed for suicide
prevention and screening of service members for mental health
issues are linked to the deployment cycle. Yet, DOD Suicide
Event Reports from recent years indicate that less than half of
the service members who have committed suicide had deployed,
and only a small number were involved with direct combat.
The committee remains committed to exploring new means to
identify mental health concerns and prevent suicides, and
expects the Department to continually monitor best practices in
other government agencies, academia, and the private sector in
order to recognize when a service member may need psychological
help. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in collaboration with each of the military services
and the reserve component, to assess the feasibility and
advisability of utilizing innovative tools to screen service
members for mental health conditions and risk of suicide, and
to submit a report not later than February 1, 2014, that
includes the following elements:
(1) current ways in which each of the services and
reserve components screen service members for mental
health conditions;
(2) an assessment of utilizing a computerized
adaptive test during a service member's annual physical
health assessment;
(3) an assessment of incorporating input through a
computerized survey from a service member's first-line
supervisor with regard to any behavioral changes
observed in the service member;
(4) an assessment of analyzing the wellness of a
service member utilizing publicly available data to
develop predictive analytical models that may identify
individuals that could be more susceptible to suicide;
(5) a description of how a pilot program to evaluate
these new screening tools could be designed in a manner
consistent with medical testing procedures and ethical
and privacy requirements; and
(6) a description of any other innovative methods to
enable early identification of mental health conditions
or risk of suicide that the Department has recently
considered and the reasons why the Department decided
not to utilize those methods.
U.S. Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force and Families
Initiatives
The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)
testified before the committee that ``USSOCOM must ensure our
SOF [Special Operations Force] warriors and their families are
properly cared for and that we work to help them reduce the
stress they face related to high operation tempos. Difficulty
also occurs as forces reconnect and reintegrate into garrison
and family activities. The Department of Defense provides
preventive and responsive counseling, medical, psychological,
and rehabilitative care to institutionalize the resiliency of
our SOF warriors and their families.''
The committee applauds USSOCOM for its focus on the support
and resiliency of SOF and their families through various
initiatives, including human performance, personnel tempo, and
family programs. The committee also supports the decision of
the Commander of USSOCOM to use special operations-peculiar, or
Major Force Program-11, funds to augment family support
programs provided by the services to meet the unique needs of
the SOF families when there is a ``clear and demonstrable
connection between the services provided and the combat
readiness of the service member.''
According to USSOCOM, ``while the services offer a host of
excellent family support programs, there are aspects of SOF
that necessitate innovations and the expansion of programs that
are not common to the general purpose forces . . . Currently,
many of the family programs sponsored by the services are
limited in scope, and are centric to the sponsoring service.
Despite a recent emphasis by the services to bolster family
support programs, we still find that there is limited access to
some services and a dearth of programs that adequately account
for the unique needs of the SOF community.'' The committee
believes the services have a responsibility to provide
appropriate family readiness support to all service members and
their families, including the SOF community.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the
Commander of USSOCOM, to submit a report not later than 90 days
after enactment of this Act that, at a minimum: (1) describes
any family support requirements that are unique to the SOF
community; (2) offers an analysis of support provided by the
services to address these unique requirements; (3) identifies
any gaps in family support provided by the services to the SOF
community; (4) provides recommended actions for addressing
identified gaps; and (5) relates any other matters deemed
appropriate by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness or the Commander of USSOCOM.
Veteran unemployment
The committee is concerned about the high rate of
unemployment that persists for our youngest veterans. The
unemployment rate also impacts the Department of Defense
budget. Over the past 10 years, the Department of Defense
expended more than $6.0 billion in unemployment compensation
for veterans.
The Departments of Defense and Labor should review and
place emphasis on improving the management and oversight
associated with the veteran unemployment compensation program
and payments.
In addition to the unemployment compensation issue, both
veterans and prospective employers have brought to our
attention that there is no single portal for veterans to find
jobs, and employers to post jobs. There are numerous redundant
websites and portals managed by federal agencies to provide
employment services to veterans.
As such, the committee strongly urges the Departments of
Labor, Defense, and Veterans Affairs to continue the process of
streamlining existing employment portals into a consolidated
portal.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Fiscal year 2014 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
an across-the-board pay raise for members of the uniformed
services of 1 percent effective January 1, 2014.
Repeal of authority relating to commencement of basic pay for members
of the National Guard called into Federal service for less than
30 days (sec. 602)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
subsection (c) of section 204 of title 37, United States Code,
to remove the existing limitation on when members of the
National Guard are entitled to receive basic pay when called
into federal service for a period of 30 days or less.
Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of basic
allowance for housing under certain circumstances (sec. 603)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily
increase the rate of basic allowance for housing in areas
impacted by natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx
of personnel.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for
reserve forces (sec. 611)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay 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, and income replacement for reserve component
members experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for
active duty service.
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for
health care professionals (sec. 612)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate
accession bonus, education loan repayment for certain health
professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and
retention bonuses for psychologists, the accession bonus for
registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse
anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health
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.
One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear
officers (sec. 613)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-
qualified officers extending period of active service, the
nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual
incentive bonus.
One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated
special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the
general bonus authority for officers, special bonus and
incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special
aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities for officers, and
special bonus and incentive pay authorities for officers in
health professions. The provision would also extend for 1 year
the authority to pay hazardous duty pay, assignment or special
duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus, and
retention incentives for members qualified in critical military
skills or assigned to high priority units.
One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 37
bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention
bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for
active members, the enlistment bonus, 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.
Correction of citation for extension of reimbursement authority for
travel expenses for inactive-duty training outside of normal
commuting distance and additional one-year extension (sec. 616)
The committee recommends a provision that would correct an
erroneous citation in section 611(7) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239)
that extended authority to pay travel expenses for certain
inactive-duty training outside of normal commuting distances.
The provision would further extend the authority to December
31, 2014.
Expansion to all reserve components of stipend for registered nurses in
critical specialties under health professions stipend program
(sec. 617)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 16201(d) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
payment of the health professions stipend to a nurse enrolled
in an accredited program of nursing in a specialty designated
as critical by the Secretary of Defense who is eligible for
appointment as a Reserve officer in any of the reserve
components.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
Technical and standardizing amendments to Department of Defense travel
and transportation authorities in connection with reform of
such authorities (sec. 631)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 1040, 1074i, 1482, and 1491 of title 10, United States
Code, and sections 451 and 453 of title 37, United States Code,
to make technical changes to those sections to conform with the
travel consolidation reform enacted in sections 631 and 632 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81). The provision would also repeal sections
1036, 1053a, and 2634 of title 10, United States Code, as
superseded.
Subtitle D--Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits
Clarification of prevention of retired pay inversion in the case of
members whose retired pay is computed using high-three (sec.
641)
The committee recommends a provision that would make a
technical amendment to section 1401a of title 10, United States
Code, to clarify that certain provisions of subsection (f) of
that section do not apply to the computation of retired pay of
members who first entered active duty on or after September 8,
1980.
Effect on division of retired pay of election to receive combat-related
special compensation after previous election to receive
concurrent retirement and disability compensation (sec. 642)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1414 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the
effect on prior payments of an election to receive combat-
related special compensation after a previous election to
receive concurrent retirement and disability compensation was
made relative to the division of retired pay under section 1408
of title 10, United States Code.
Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for special needs trusts established
for the benefit of dependent children incapable of self-support
(sec. 643)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 1450 and 1455 of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize the payment of the Survivor Benefit Plan annuity to a
special needs trust created under subparagraph (A) or (C) of
section 1396p(d)(4) of title 42, United States Code, for the
sole benefit of a disabled dependent child incapable of self-
support because of mental or physical incapacity.
Periodic notice to members of the Ready Reserve on early retirement
credit earned for significant periods of active Federal status
or active duty (sec. 644)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 12731 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
service secretaries to provide periodic notice to reserve
component members of any early retirement credit they have
earned for service described in that section by such means as
the secretary concerned considers appropriate.
Preservation of retiree dependent status for certain dependents upon
death or permanent incapacitation of the retired member on whom
dependent status is based (sec. 645)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1060b of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
no further certification of a dependent for financial support
shall be required or carried out in the case of a dependent who
has been granted a permanent identification card by reason of
permanent disability when the member or retiree providing the
basis for dependency dies or becomes permanently incapacitated.
Subtitle E--Military Lending Matters
Enhanced role for the Department of Justice under the Military Lending
Act (sec. 661)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 987 of title 10, United States Code, to provide civil
enforcement authority over the Military Lending Act to the
Department of Justice.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Authority to provide certain expenses for care and disposition of human
remains that were retained by the Department of Defense for
forensic pathology investigation (sec. 671)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the payment of certain expenses for the care and disposition of
human remains retained by a service secretary pursuant to a
forensic pathology investigation by the Armed Forces Medical
Examiner under section 1471 of title 10, United States Code.
Extension of ongoing pilot programs under temporary Army incentive to
provide additional recruitment incentives (sec. 672)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 681 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) to authorize the
Secretary of the Army to continue through December 31, 2015,
any pilot program carried out under that section that was
ongoing as of December 31, 2012.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration
Pilot program on increased collection of third-party reimbursements for
health care services provided in military medical treatment
facilities (sec. 711)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the service
secretaries, to carry out a pilot program to assess the
feasibility and advisability of using commercially available
enhanced recovery practices for medical payment collection at
military treatment facilities. The provision would also require
the Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees
a report on the pilot program not later than 180 days after
completion of the program.
The committee is concerned that the lack of an effective
collection process in each of the services has resulted in lost
reimbursement to the government for medical services rendered.
While the committee understands that the Department of Defense
is currently exploring options to outsource third party
collections, the committee believes that such action has been
delayed.
Sense of Senate on implementation of integrated electronic health
records for the Department of Defense and the Department of
Veterans Affairs (sec. 712)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that: despite years of effort and the
expenditure of significant resources, full electronic
interoperability between the health record systems of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs
has not yet been achieved; the Secretary of Defense, in
collaboration with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, should
fully staff the Interagency Program Office and establish
challenging, but achievable, deadlines for development and
implementation of measures and goals for electronic health
record interoperability; and the Interagency Program Office
should establish a secure, remote, network-accessible computer
storage system.
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters
Report on provision of advanced prosthetics and orthotics to members of
the Armed Forces and veterans (sec. 721)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
report, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, on the plans of the Department of Defense and the
Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that the most
clinically appropriate prosthetics and orthotics are made
available to injured service members and veterans using
technological advances as appropriate.
Items of Special Interest
Autism spectrum disorder services
The committee commends the Department of Defense for its
continued efforts to ensure that military families have access
to appropriate autism spectrum disorder diagnosis,
intervention, and treatment services. The committee expects the
Department to continue to assist eligible autistic
beneficiaries to receive effective, evidence-based intervention
and treatment approaches, and to ensure the provision of such
services for autistic dependents of service members living in
rural or underserved communities.
Education and training of the acquisition workforce of the TRICARE
Management Activity
The Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG)
released a report on May 1, 2013, titled, ``TRICARE Management
Activity Needs to Improve Oversight of Acquisition Workforce.''
The DOD IG audit found that acquisition personnel of the
TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) ``did not have required
certifications for their functional areas, accurate position
descriptions for their assigned duties, or proper training.''
Additionally, the DOD IG discovered that the Component
Acquisition Executive ``did not have procedures to adequately
monitor the acquisition workforce and did not place the
required emphasis on the identification, development, training,
and assignment of acquisition workforce personnel.'' The
committee notes that in the DOD IG's view, these deficiencies
placed the TMA at ``increased risk for fraud, waste and
abuse.'' While the TMA has agreed with and worked to address
the DOD IG's findings and recommendations, the committee
remains extremely concerned about the findings in the DOD IG's
report.
The committee believes that with the significant number of
high value contracts awarded by the TMA--over $11.0 billion in
fiscal year 2012 alone--the Department of Defense must ensure
that the TMA's acquisition management process meets workforce
training and certification requirements. Therefore, 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, not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, on the actions the Department is taking
to correct the education and training challenges facing the
TRICARE acquisition workforce.
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for mild traumatic brain injury
The committee remains extremely concerned about the effects
of traumatic brain injury (TBI) on our service members and
veterans, as TBI is a signature wound of Operations Enduring
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The committee notes that the
Department of Defense (DOD) reports that there were over
266,000 TBI cases in service members, both active and reserve
component, from 2000 through 2012. The committee applauds DOD
for its significant investment in TBI research with a focus on
development of diagnostic tools and evidence-based care
protocols, and understands that DOD is currently conducting
three randomized, placebo-controlled pilot studies to determine
the effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for alleviating
symptoms following mild TBI in military personnel. The
committee expects that these pilot studies will inform the
Department about the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for
mild TBI.
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 within 180 days of
completion of the pilot studies that describes the methodology,
results, and conclusions of the studies. If hyperbaric oxygen
therapy is determined to be effective, the report should
address any changes in policy or legislation that may be needed
regarding the provision of hyperbaric oxygen services to
patients with mild TBI.
Mental health counselors for service members, veterans, and their
families
The committee recognizes that many years of combat
operations have caused service members in both the active and
reserve components to experience increased exposure to unique
and significant stressors. Additionally, service members and
their families face daily stress in every phase of military
life and as they transition to veteran status. The committee
believes that mental health counseling needs of service
members, veterans, and their families will continue to increase
for the foreseeable future.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide a joint report
within 270 days of the enactment of this Act that describes a
coordinated, unified plan to ensure adequate mental health
counseling resources to address the long-term needs of all
members of the armed forces, veterans, and their families. In
developing the plan and report, the committee expects the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to
consider all available types of trained counseling providers,
including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers,
chaplains, and other counseling professionals, as appropriate.
The report shall also include a comprehensive staffing plan to
ensure an appropriate alignment of mental health resources and
needs.
Ribonucleic acid research
The committee notes with concern that service members are
hospitalized more often for infectious diseases than service
members who are wounded in combat, and commends the Department
of Defense for its ongoing efforts to address these diseases.
Therefore, the committee supports Department of Defense
investment to further improve prevention, diagnosis, and
treatment for service members from rare and infectious viral,
bacterial, immune, and neurological diseases through research
initiatives such as ribonucleic acid-based research addressing
proteins.
TRICARE appeals process
The committee believes that a fundamental right of TRICARE
beneficiaries is a fair and efficient process for resolving
disputes with the TRICARE program. The committee notes that the
TRICARE appeals process is a multi-level sequential process
that allows beneficiaries to request reconsideration from the
managed care support contractor, file an appeal with the
TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), and finally, request an
independent hearing if they dispute either a medical necessity
determination or a factual determination made in their case. If
a case dispute moves to the final stage of the appeals process,
a hearing officer examines the available evidence and issues a
recommended decision on the case.
The committee has learned that the Director of the TMA or
their designee, after consideration of a hearing officer's
recommended decision, may unilaterally issue a final decision
that overturns the independent hearing officer's
recommendation. Advocacy groups have informed the committee
that beneficiaries who have pursued the full range of options
in the appeals process and received a favorable recommendation
from the independent hearing officer perceive the process as
unfair when the TMA summarily overturns the hearing officer's
recommended decision.
Therefore, 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, within 180 days of the
enactment of this Act, that: (1) describes the current TRICARE
appeals process; (2) provides summary data showing the numbers
and types of cases submitted by beneficiaries for appeals and
hearings over the previous 5 fiscal years; (3) provides data to
show both the favorable and unfavorable beneficiary outcomes of
all independent hearing cases over the previous 5 fiscal years;
(4) describes the average length of time for beneficiaries to
obtain a decision from the TMA either from an appeal or a
hearing; and (5) provides data on the number of cases in which
the Director of the TMA makes a determination different than
the recommended decision of the hearing officer to grant a
beneficiary appeal.
TRICARE emergency department utilization
The committee is concerned about the rate of emergency
department utilization by TRICARE beneficiaries. The committee
understands that families often seek 24-hour emergency
department care rather than urgent care clinics to manage
after-hours health concerns, and that active-duty family
members in transition are a population with a particularly high
incidence of emergency room usage.
The committee notes that current regulations require that
TRICARE Prime beneficiaries seeking care from a provider other
than their primary care manager, to include visits to urgent
care clinics or facilities, must first obtain a referral. In
addition, the average cost of a private sector emergency
department visit under TRICARE is $541 per visit, while the
average cost for a visit at a private sector urgent care clinic
is only $88 per visit.
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
is currently conducting a demonstration program that allows
TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Prime Remote U.S. Coast Guard
beneficiaries in the southern region four unmanaged urgent care
visits per fiscal year without point-of-service charges, and
that thus far, the demonstration has shown promising results in
reducing emergency room utilization. The committee commends DOD
for conducting this demonstration and requests to be kept
apprised of its results.
In addition, the committee has learned that DOD plans to
implement a nurse advice line across the military health system
to provide around-the-clock medical information and advice to
TRICARE beneficiaries through registered nurses who would guide
them to the most appropriate level of care required and assist
them with appointment scheduling for conditions that can be
treated during routine hours. The committee has been informed
that implementation of this advice line has been delayed until
at least the fall.
The committee believes that current TRICARE policy may
incentivize emergency department use by requiring TRICARE Prime
beneficiaries to obtain pre-authorizations for urgent care
visits, and that this requirement places an administrative
burden on families and discourages utilization of less costly
urgent care options. While the committee does not want to
discourage emergency department use when a true emergency
exists, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense
to revise existing policy to encourage beneficiaries to use
urgent care, when appropriate, rather than more expensive
emergency department care, and to field its nurse advice line
without further delay.
Use of simulation technology in medical training
The committee appreciates the Department of Defense's work
to reduce the use of live animals in combat training courses
when appropriate as detailed in the April 2013 ``Report to
Congress on the Strategy to Transition to Use of Human-Based
Methods for Certain Medical Training.'' The committee commends
the Department's interest in the development of simulation
technology and shares its commitment to improve and modernize
the training of military medical personnel without degradation
to combat trauma care. The Department's 2009 ``Final Report on
the Use of Live Animals in Medical Education and Training Joint
Analysis Team'' projected that validated simulators for many
``high volume/high value'' medical procedures could be
developed by 2014. The 2013 report provides an updated timeline
indicating that a more realistic timeline for the development
and procurement of simulation products would be in 2017 and
beyond. In light of this, the committee encourages the
Department to expedite wherever practicable the transition to
human-based medical training methods and replacement of live
animals in combat trauma training courses when appropriate and
where modern validated simulators can provide equally effective
training that achieves established combat casualty survival
rates.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management
Restatement and revision of requirements applicable to multiyear
defense acquisitions to be specifically authorized by law (sec.
801)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify and
reorganize the reporting and certification requirements of the
Department of Defense when requesting specific authorization
for multiyear contract authority.
Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, requires the
Secretary of Defense, in the case of a contract equal to or
greater than $500.0 million, to certify that certain
requirements will be met by the proposed contract no later than
March 1st of the year in which the legislative authority to
enter into such contract is requested. The Secretary must send
a notification of the findings regarding the same requirements
30 days before award of the contract.
The committee finds value in both the certification and the
notification, but, believes that the timing is reversed. The
recommended provision would reorganize the timeline so the
Secretary provides the initial findings of the enumerated
requirements when requesting multiyear contract authority and
then certifies the completed findings prior to contract award.
The committee believes this will provide more reasonable
and complete information.
Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced in
countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec.
802)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2015, the authority under section 801 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2399), as amended, to acquire
goods and services on a non-competitive basis in certain
countries along the Northern Distribution Network transit
routes that support U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense is
seeking to extend this authority in part because it anticipates
that retrograde operations for U.S. equipment coming out of
Afghanistan will extend beyond the conclusion of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization International Security Assistance
Force mission at the end of 2014.
Report on program manager training and experience (sec. 803)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit an updated version of the 2009
Department of Defense report titled: ``OSD [Office of the
Secretary of Defense] Study of Program Manager Training and
Experience'' not later than 120 days from enactment of this
Act.
Subtitle B--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs
Synchronization of cryptographic systems for major defense acquisition
programs (sec. 821)
The committee recommends a provision that as part of a
milestone B decision for a major defense acquisition program,
would require that there be a plan in place to mitigate and
account for costs in connection with decertification of
cryptographic equipment during production and procurement of
the system. The provision includes a waiver based on national
security needs. The provision is based on prior experience with
the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite System which
has had to re-engineer a new cryptographic unit as it was
decertified during the production of the satellite system.
Assessment of dedicated control system before Milestone B approval of
major defense acquisition programs constituting a space program
(sec. 822)
The committee recommends a provision that would implement a
recommendation from the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report, ``Satellite Control Operations,'' GAO-13-315,
concerning the use of dedicated satellite control systems. The
provision requires the Department of Defense, as part of its
Milestone B decision, to perform a business case analysis on
the use of a dedicated control system instead of a shared
system. The Department should adhere to the report's
recommendation on page 28, that ``[t]he analysis should include
a comparison of total dedicated network costs to the
incremental cost of integrating onto a shared network.''
Additional responsibility for product support managers for major weapon
systems (sec. 823)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2337 of Title 10, United States Code, and section 823
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(Public Law 112-239) to provide an assurance that all product
support arrangements explicitly state how the arrangement will
maximize use of government owned inventory before obtaining
inventory from commercial sources.
The committee notes that this provision is a result of the
recommendations of the Department of Defense Inspector General
(DOD IG) report dated April 25, 2013, that found the Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) did not cost-effectively manage 118 high
mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) parts valued at
$11.1 million while purchasing these parts from AM General, LLC
for $17.6 million.
The committee notes this occurred because the DLA did not
review DLA-owned inventory at key contract decision points to
maximize use of its own stock. As a result, the DOD IG
identified $9.7 million of excess inventory that could have
been used for HMMWV maintenance requirements.
The committee notes that this particular DOD IG
investigation and report only focused on one particular weapon
system at one particular depot. The committee believes there
could be an opportunity for greater and similar inventory
efficiency across all Department of Defense weapon systems.
Comptroller General of the United States review of Department of
Defense processes for the acquisition of weapons systems (sec.
824)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to carry out a
comprehensive review of the processes and procedures of the
Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapons
systems and report upon this review to the congressional
defense committees.
Subtitle C--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures,
and Limitations
Maximum amount of allowable costs of compensation of contractor
employees (sec. 841)
The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the
cap on allowable costs of compensation of contractor employees
to an amount consistent with the original legislative cap,
adjusted for inflation, and provide for future annual
adjustments by reflecting the change in the Employment Cost
Index (ECI) for all workers, as calculated by the Bureau of
Labor and Statistics.
Section 808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) limited the amount of
contractor executive compensation allowable for reimbursement
under federal contracts to a benchmark based on the median
amount of compensation provided to senior executives in large
U.S. corporations, as calculated by the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy (OFPP)--then $340,650.
Since that time the cap has more than doubled to $763,029
for 2011 and 2012, and is expected to increase to more than
$950,000 in 2013. By contrast, if the original cap had been
adjusted for inflation it would now be only $487,325. The
committee concludes that the growth of the cap by almost
$300,000 more than the rate of inflation cannot be justified.
At a time when most Americans are seeing little or no
increase in their paychecks and budget constraints require the
Department of Defense to find efficiencies in all areas, the
committee concludes that increases of this magnitude are
unsupportable.
Implementation by Department of Defense of certain recommendations of
the Comptroller General of the United States on oversight of
pensions offered by Department contractors (sec. 842)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to assign responsibility within the
Department for oversight of the reasonableness of the pension
plans offered by Department contractors and issue certain
guidance on pension benefits.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Extension of prohibition on contracting with the enemy in the United
States Central Command theater of operations (sec. 861)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81) by striking ``the date that is
three years after the date of the enactment of this Act'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2016''.
Section 841 allowed the Secretary of Defense to void a
contract being performed in the U.S. Central Command area of
responsibility upon a determination that a foreign entity or
individual performing on the contract is directly engaged in
hostilities or is substantially supporting forces that are
engaged in hostilities against the United States or its
coalition partners.
Prohibition on contracting with the enemy (sec. 862)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81).
Section 841 allows the Secretary of Defense to void a
contract being performed in the U.S. Central Command area of
responsibility upon a determination that a foreign entity or
individual performing on the contract is directly engaged in
hostilities or is substantially supporting forces that are
engaged in hostilities against the United States or its
coalition partners.
The committee recommends expansion of this provision to all
combatant commanders. Upon receiving findings that a person or
entity is providing funds to a person or entity who is engaged
in hostilities against the United States, the combatant
commander would, in consultation with the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the relevant U.S.
embassy, determine an appropriate plan of action to mitigate
the flow of funds to that person or entity.
When that plan of action includes contract actions, the
head of contracting activity may terminate or void the
contract, grant, or cooperative agreement, and restrict future
awards to such person or entity.
The individual or entity would be provided with post-
deprivation due process within 30 days of the receipt of
notification.
Report on the elimination of improper payments (sec. 863)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to report on the Department's plan to
implement the recommendations of the Comptroller General
regarding the elimination of improper payments.
Items of Special Interest
Application of the Berry Amendment to the acquisition of athletic
footwear in the Department of Defense
Congress passed the Berry Amendment in 1941 to ensure that
American soldiers trained and operated, to the greatest extent
practicable, in American-made materials. The Berry Amendment
specifically covers footwear listed in Federal Supply Class
8430 or 8435.
The Army, in 2001, and the Air Force, in 2008, have moved
away from issuing athletic footwear to new recruits. Instead,
new recruits are given an allowance to acquire athletic
footwear from the service exchange.
During this period of time, no athletic footwear was
available that could have met the requirements of the Berry
Amendment without a waiver. It is the committee's understanding
that at least one domestic contractor is now producing such
footwear.
Therefore, the committee directs U.S. Army Natick Soldier
Research, Development, and Engineering Center to undergo a
study, to be completed no later than January 1, 2014, of
currently available Berry compliant athletic footwear to
ascertain whether the Department's needs could be satisfied for
new recruits. The committee believes this study should review
the various sizes and fit of athletic shoes required, the cost
and capacity of products available in sufficient quantity and
quality to meet the needs of the Department of Defense (DOD),
and whether such footwear could be made.
During roughly the last decade, certain procurement
incidents and policy changes have created some level of unease
with respect to the Berry Amendment's application to not only
athletic footwear but also textiles and clothing. As such, the
committee directs DOD to submit a publicly releasable report to
the congressional defense committees that includes, but not be
limited to, any audits or auditing policy, investigations and
enforcement, incentives, procurement officer training, and
regulatory interpretation guidelines relating to the
Department's contracting for textiles and clothing contained in
Federal Supply Codes 83 and 84, and athletic footwear listed in
Federal Supply Class 8430 and 8435.
Clarification pertaining to small business contracting requiring a
written justification and approval
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84) included a requirement for a written
justification and approval (J&A) when awarding applicable
federal sole-source contracts in excess of $20.0 million.
Ensuring competition in the federal acquisition process is
of vital importance to U.S. taxpayers. Section 811 was intended
to further this objective; however, the committee understands
government contracting officers may inadvertently be deterred
from awarding Small Business 8(a) contracts over $20.0 million
as a result of confusion over the proper interpretation of
section 811.
Section 811 does not prohibit the award of sole source
contracts of over $20.0 million to those businesses which
qualify for the Small Business 8(a) program; however, those
contracts do require a J&A.
Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees on the actions taken and
guidance issued regarding the proper use and implementation of
section 811 as it regards Small Business 8(a) contracts.
Competition in the development and procurement of training systems
Section 202(d) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111--23) requires the Secretary of Defense
to take actions to ensure that, to the maximum extent
practicable and consistent with statutory requirements,
contracts for the procurement of major weapon systems are
awarded on a competitive basis that gives full consideration to
all potential sources.
This provision reflects the committee's view that
competition, where it is feasible, results in reduced costs and
improved contractor performance.
The committee believes that competition can have a similar
beneficial impact in the area of training systems related to
major programs. The committee urges the military departments to
actively explore the expanded use of competition as a tool to
drive down costs and improve performance in the acquisition of
training systems for major programs.
Comptroller General of the United States report on best value
competitive source selection techniques
The Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15 allows the use
of several best value competitive source selection techniques
to meet agency needs. An agency can obtain best value in
negotiated acquisitions by using any one of a number of source
selection approaches. Within this best value continuum, the
contracting officer (CO) should choose an approach that is most
advantageous to the government.
The CO may elect to use the lowest price technically
acceptable process in acquisitions where the requirement is
clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract
performance is minimal. By contrast, the CO may elect to use a
trade-off process in acquisitions when it may be in the best
interest of the government to consider award to other than the
lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically
rated offeror. In these instances, non-cost evaluation factors,
such as technical capabilities, can play an important role in
the source selection and trade-offs among price and non-cost
factors and allow the Department to accept other than the
lowest priced proposal.
The committee has concerns that the appropriate acquisition
process is not always being utilized and therefore directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of
the sufficiency of the training of the acquisition workforce in
the selection of the appropriate acquisition process, and
review guidance and directives on the appropriate use of the
various acquisition processes.
Comptroller General of the United States report on in-line management
process for the acquisition process
Not later than April 15, 2014, the Comptroller General of
the United States shall review the chain of command for
acquisition-related functions of the Department of Defense
(DOD) and potential changes to that chain of command.
The committee understands that the current system is
intended to avoid fragmentation, as recommended by the Packard
Commission report in 1986, by ensuring that program managers
report only to program executive officers, who report only to
service acquisition executives, who are in turn subject to the
management and supervision of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to consider
alternate approaches that would increase the role of the
service secretaries and/or the service chiefs in that process,
including the ``in-line management process'' recommended by the
independent panel assessment accompanying the 2009 Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR), to determine whether or not such changes
would be likely to enhance performance and accountability in
the acquisition of major defense acquisition programs.
The Comptroller General's review should, at a minimum,
consider: (1) whether adding the service secretaries and/or
chiefs of staff to the acquisition chain of command would be
likely to increase or reduce fragmentation of authority and
accountability in the acquisition system; and (2) whether
adding the service secretaries and/or chiefs of staff to the
acquisition chain of command would or would not be likely to
help address the underlying causes of cost, schedule, and
performance problems in the acquisition process.
In conducting this review, the Comptroller General should
also consider the requirements of section 853 of the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364) regarding program manager empowerment and
accountability and assess whether adding the service
secretaries and/or chiefs of staff to the acquisition chain of
command would be likely to contribute to or detract from the
objectives of that provision.
Comptroller General report on process and procedures for identifying
duplicative and/or inefficient major development and
procurement programs
The committee requires the Comptroller General of the
United States to review the various processes and procedures
for identifying duplicative and/or inefficient major
development and procurement programs, report upon their
efficiency, and make any recommendations for improvement to the
congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after
the enactment of this Act.
Report on the configuration steering boards
The committee supports the work of the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (JROC) that has identified mechanisms to
ensure ``appropriate trade-offs are made among the life-cycle
cost, schedule, and performance objectives, and procurement
quantity objectives, in the establishment and approval of
military requirements.'' Specifically, the JROC has issued
guidance that ``encourages Program Managers, Program Executive
Officers and Component Acquisition Executives, in coordination
with the requirements sponsor, to officially require
requirements relief, through the appropriate requirements
validation authority, where Key Performance Parameters appear
out of line with an appropriate cost-benefit analysis.''
The committee, however, continues to have concerns with the
growth and change of requirements during a program's life-cycle
and believes that such requirements creep can occur at lower
levels of the requirements chain.
The committee attempted to address this issue in the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(P.L. 110-417) with a provision, section 814, creating
Configuration Steering Boards for cost control under major
defense acquisition programs.
Configuration Steering Boards are responsible for reviewing
any proposed changes to program requirements or system
configuration that could have the potential to adversely impact
program cost or schedule and for recommending changes that have
the potential to improve program cost or schedule in a manner
consistent with program objectives.
The committee directs the Government Accountability Office
to conduct a study of the implementation of section 814 and the
extent to which the services have convened Configuration
Steering Boards, and the extent to which requirements creep has
been successfully addressed.
Required goals for future Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness
reports
The Department of Defense (DOD) is required to achieve
audit readiness for its Statement of Business Resources by
September 30, 2014 and audit readiness for its full financial
statements by September 30, 2017. In order to assist in
achieving these legal requirements, DOD has published a
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Guidance.
The FIAR Guidance outlines a process of four waves for
achieving audit readiness. Each wave has objectives that must
be achieved before progressing to the next wave. DOD provides
quarterly reports on their progress in meeting their
objectives.
The committee notes that progress is being made toward
these goals; however, the committee also notes that the most
recent quarterly report did not contain a specific deadline for
completion of the third wave. Therefore, the committee directs
the Department to include a deadline for completion of each
wave in the next quarterly report, including specific metrics
tracking progress on their completion.
The committee notes that substantial progress has been made
toward meeting these statutory goals; however, the committee
remains concerned with the Department's ability to actually
achieve them. The Department's financial and related business
management systems and control weaknesses have adversely
affected its ability to control costs and ensure basic
accountability.
As the most recent FIAR Guidance points out, ``each of the
military departments is larger than most American companies.
The Department's annual budget is 56 percent of the Federal
Government's discretionary budget and it holds 86 percent of
the Federal Government's assets, as reported on the Federal
Government's Consolidated Financial Statements. With over $1.0
trillion in combined budgetary resources, producing auditable
financial statements requires a strategic, long-term plan that
addresses issues in an organized, prioritized, and incremental
manner.''
The committee strongly believes, therefore, that producing
auditable financial statements is crucial to providing
efficient and effective use of limited budgetary resources.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management
Under Secretary of Defense for Management (sec. 901)
The committee recommends a provision that would convert the
position of Deputy Chief Management Officer to Under Secretary
of Defense for Management (USD(M)) and to designate that
position as the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the
Department of Defense (DOD).
Section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) designated the
Deputy Secretary of Defense as the DOD Chief Management Officer
(DCMO), established an Under Secretary of Defense-level Deputy
Chief Management Officer to assist the Deputy Secretary, and
named the under secretaries of the military departments as
their organizations' Chief Management Officers.
This legislation was intended to strengthen the management
of DOD's business operations and was the result of a series of
recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
and several think-tanks that argued the need for a senior
official at DOD with significant authority and experience to
focus attention on enterprise-wide business transformation and
sustain progress at the highest levels of DOD.
The framework enacted into law was a compromise between
those such as then-Comptroller General David Walker who
advocated creation of a second Deputy Secretary of Defense
focused solely on management, and those who asserted that no
reorganization was necessary to address DOD's persistent
business challenges.
Following enactment of the legislation, DOD moved quickly
to implement the new office of the DCMO with the mission of
integrating, synchronizing, and coordinating DOD's business
operations. On July 1, 2010, the first DCMO was confirmed by
the Senate and sworn in. At that time, DOD believed that the
new management structure put in place by the FY08 NDAA was
properly scoped and defined to enable DOD to make significant
progress in breaking down its functional stovepipes.
The committee believes that while significant progress has
been made, it has become increasingly clear that additional
changes to the structure of the DCMO position are needed to
position DOD for success in its business mission.
Specifically, change is required to make the DCMO a co-
equal of the other Under Secretaries of Defense with the
independent statutory authorities necessary to introduce and
drive implementation of transformational change and improvement
in the Department's business operations.
The provision also would designate the USD(M) as the
Department's CIO and would mandate that the USD(M) exercise
authority, direction, and control over the Information
Assurance Directorate (IAD) of the National Security Agency
(NSA). Since the elimination of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration
(ASD(NII)), the DOD CIO has not been a Senate-confirmed
position. In addition, in creating the DCMO position, Congress
assigned multiple roles and responsibilities to the DCMO that
had been performed by the CIO, which further diluted the clout
of the CIO. Also, the bifurcation of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,
Communications, and Intelligence into the ASD(NII) and the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) led to the
USD(I) supervising the NSA IAD, despite the fact that the CIO,
not the USD(I), is responsible for information systems
security, which is the mission of the IAD.
The current provision would unify roles and functions
traditionally performed by the CIO and strengthen the office by
making it a Senate-confirmed position again, but without
creating an additional position. A strengthened CIO will
provide better management and oversight of information
technology, systems, and operations within DOD, including over
the U.S. Cyber Command. Combining these offices also should
produce some savings in overhead.
The recommended provision would also amend section 137a(d)
of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the order of
precedence for the Principal Deputy Under Secretaries of
Defense would be immediately following the officials serving in
the positions of the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary
of Defense, the Secretaries of the military departments, the
Under Secretaries of Defense, and the officials serving in
positions specified in section 131(b)(4) of title 10, United
States Code.
Supervision of Command Acquisition Executive of the United States
Special Operations Command by the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (sec. 902)
The budget request for U.S. Special Operations Command
(USSOCOM) included approximately $1.6 billion for procurement
and $372.7 million for research, development, test, and
evaluation (RDTE). The committee notes that this total
represents an increase of more than double in USSOCOM's
investment accounts since fiscal year 2001.
The Commander of USSOCOM is unique within the Department of
Defense as the only combatant commander empowered with
authorities for the development and acquisition of special
operations-peculiar equipment. Furthermore, the staff of the
Commander of USSOCOM includes an acquisition executive that
reports solely to the Commander. This is unlike the service
acquisition executives of the military departments who are
subject to the direction of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) in addition
to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of
the military department concerned.
The committee is supportive of USSOCOM's unique acquisition
authorities to provide for the special operations-peculiar
requirements of its forces, including rapid acquisition of
urgently needed capabilities for deployed or deploying special
operations forces. Further, the committee notes that the
flexibility inherent in these authorities is enormously
important to ensuring that our special operations forces can
adapt to the rapidly evolving nature of global threats.
However, given the significant growth in USSOCOM's budget in
recent years and current fiscal pressures, the committee
believes additional civilian oversight of USSOCOM investment
programs is prudent, particularly the development and
acquisition of special operations-peculiar platforms.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would
make the USSOCOM Acquisition Executive subject to the direction
of the USD(AT&L) for certain acquisition programs. The
provision would also require the USD(AT&L) to designate an
appropriate official within the Office of the USD(AT&L) to
provide such oversight and direction for those programs. The
provision would not alter the relationship between the USSOCOM
Acquisition Executive and the Commander of USSOCOM and it is
not the intent of the committee to delay, unnecessarily impede,
or undermine the flexibility of USSOCOM development and
acquisition efforts.
Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and
Communications System (sec. 903)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
council to coordinate activities related to national leadership
command, control, and communications systems, including the
nuclear command, control, and communications system.
Transfer of administration of Ocean Research Advisory Panel from
Department of the Navy to National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (sec. 904)
The committee recommends a provision, based upon a
Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would transfer
responsibility for administration of the Ocean Research
Advisory Panel (ORAP) from the Department of the Navy to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the
Department of Commerce. This change would allow the functions
of the ORAP to be aligned more appropriately to address the
full range of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes policy issues.
Streamlining of Department of Defense management headquarters (sec.
905)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for streamlining
Department of Defense management headquarters by reducing the
size of staffs, eliminating tiers of management, cutting
functions that provide little or no added value, and
consolidating overlapping and duplicative program offices.
The objective of the required plan is to reduce aggregate
spending for management headquarters by not less than $100.0
billion over a 10 fiscal-year period beginning with fiscal year
2015.
Update of statutory statement of functions of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff relating to doctrine, training, and education
(sec. 906)
The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the
Department of Defense, that would codify the responsibility of
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) by amending
section 153 of title 10, United States Code, to reflect the
current joint training, doctrine, education, and force
development functions that are overseen by the CJCS.
Modification of reference to major Department of Defense headquarters
activities instruction (sec. 907)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 194(f) of title 10, United States Code, to update the
reference to Department of Defense Instruction 5100.73, titled
``Major DOD Headquarters Activities.''
Subtitle B--Space Activities
Limitation on use of funds for Space Protection Program (sec. 921)
The committee has expressed concern with the failure of the
Department of Defense (DOD) to keep Congress apprised of its
counter space strategy. DOD states that they have developed an
integrated effort but the committee remains concerned by the
lack of details and resources. Of note, the Air Force's fiscal
year 2014 budget provides no funding for counter space programs
after fiscal year 2016 in the base budget. The committee
recognizes that the establishment of the Space Protection
Program is meant to provide a central focus for mission
assurance of national space capabilities. The committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to provide a strategy identifying the
near-term and long-term threat to critical national security
space systems and the Department's plan for addressing that
threat as well as the resources requested in the 5-year budget
plan to address those threats. The strategy should also include
an assessment of the capabilities and resources other countries
have allocated and plan to allocate towards their own offensive
counter space capabilities. The strategy shall be due no later
than March 1, 2014.
On numerous occasions over the past year, the committee has
requested that the Department provide a complete copy of the
study directed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense which led to
a significant revision of the Department's counter space
strategy. A copy of the study has not yet been provided to the
committee, therefore, the committee restricts $10.0 million of
the funds appropriated for the Space Protection Program until a
copy of the study is provided.
Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Matters
Personnel security (sec. 931)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
major reform of the personnel security clearance investigation,
adjudication, and transfer processes to improve security and
reduce costs. Specifically, the provision would require:
(1) the Director of Cost Analysis and Program
Evaluation to conduct a comprehensive, comparative
analysis of the cost, schedule, and performance of
personnel security investigations acquired through the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and through
components of the Department of Defense (DOD);
(2) the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan by
October 1, 2014, to acquire investigations through the
approach most advantageous to DOD and to determine
whether investigations can be improved through the
increased utilization of private entities to conduct or
provide supporting information for security
investigations;
(3) the Secretary and the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI) to develop a joint strategy to
continuously modernize all aspects of personnel
security to lower costs and improve security, and to
develop and report annually on metrics that will
demonstrate progress in achieving those objectives;
(4) the Secretary and the DNI to consider, and allow
them to adopt, a series of innovations in security
investigation methods and data sources that have been
shown to be effective through analysis and/or
demonstrations;
(5) the Secretary and the DNI to ensure, to the
maximum extent practicable, reciprocal acceptance of
clearances; and
(6) development of benchmarks by which to measure the
current level of reciprocity in clearance transfers and
the costs imposed by delays.
DOD transferred the bulk of its security investigations in
2004 to OPM because DOD had accumulated a large backlog of
clearance applications and investigations were taking an
enormous amount of time which imposed high indirect costs
through productivity losses, and (rightly) DOD did not consider
security investigations to be a core mission.
OPM successfully eliminated the backlog that it inherited
and substantially reduced the time it takes to complete
investigations.
However, personnel security costs have steadily risen and
DOD has had little visibility into OPM's cost structure to
determine what has been driving those increases. A recent
Government Accountability Office report documented OPM's lack
of cost transparency and rapidly rising costs. DOD is spending
three-quarters of a billion dollars annually on security
investigations, and costs have been rising at a rate of 10
percent a year. Multiple intelligence agencies that conduct
their own investigations using the same contractors as OPM have
achieved savings of up to 50 percent compared to the prices
charged by OPM. The pressure on budgets has become severe,
while new federal investigative standards that mandate a
periodic reinvestigation every 5 years could increase the cost
of personnel security dramatically in coming years.
In addition, DOD and DNI have been eager to modernize the
security investigation process, believing that doing so would
actually improve security, reduce the time needed for
investigations, and reduce costs. OPM has been slow to address
these cost and reform issues.
The Army and the National Reconnaissance Office
successfully demonstrated, through a pilot program, the gains
that can be achieved in efficiency, time, security, and cost by
applying modern information technology and exploiting non-
traditional information sources.
Some intelligence agencies have effectively stopped
performing periodic reinvestigations, which has led to a huge
new investigatory backlog, and because the government and
contract employees of these agencies are past due for
reinvestigations, other agencies may refuse to accept their
clearances, limiting their employment opportunities through no
fault of their own. Finally, industry has expressed concerns
about a thicket of bureaucratic obstacles that still make the
transfer of clearances between government agencies and
departments, and from one contract to another, difficult and
time-consuming, ultimately costing taxpayers substantial
amounts of money as workers are idled, with their time charged
to overhead.
The committee believes that the time has come to issue a
legislative mandate to force an action that all stakeholders
seem to agree is necessary.
Reports on clandestine human intelligence collection (sec. 932)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Director of Cost
Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE), and in consultation
with the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), acting
through the Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG), and the
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to assess
the potential cost savings and effectiveness improvements from
consolidating clandestine human intelligence (HUMINT)
collection in the National Clandestine Service managed by the
CIA. In conducting the assessment, the Secretary and the DNI
should assume that a consolidated HUMINT organization would
include a military division supervised by a general or flag
officer.
In conducting the assessment, CAPE and CAIG would also be
required to develop a methodology for comparing the
effectiveness of the ratios of support personnel to case
officers utilized by the Defense Intelligence Agency and CIA,
respectively, and recommend an optimum ratio. The Secretary of
Defense and the DNI also would be required to assess whether
institutional and procedural safeguards are available to ensure
that a consolidated HUMINT organization under the CIA could be
relied upon to meet the requirements of the Department of
Defense.
The provision also would require CAPE separately to assess
the performance of the military services in providing, and
managing the careers of, qualified case officers for the
Defense Clandestine Service (DCS), the effectiveness of DCS in
providing cover and other support services to its deployed case
officers, and whether the locations to which DCS case officers
are deployed provide the opportunity to collect the information
required by the Department.
Navy Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance aircraft (sec. 933)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to direct the modification of the radar
system that will be deployed on the Navy's Broad-Area Maritime
Surveillance (BAMS) Triton aircraft to provide a ground moving
target indicator (GMTI) capability that is comparable to the
performance of the Air Force Global Hawk Block 40 Multi-
Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP). The
provision also would require the Secretary to designate the
Triton as a joint asset available to support the operational
requirements of the unified combatant commands for radar and
signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection.
The committee understands that the Triton radar could be
modified through software additions at a very modest cost to
achieve GMTI performance of the same level of quality and
capacity as the Block 40 Global Hawk. The Navy plans to
procure, over the life of the program, approximately 70 Triton
aircraft. The committee believes it would be a serious mistake
for the Department of Defense to pass on the opportunity to
equip this fleet to support, when needed, the ground forces of
the Marine Corps, the Army, and Special Forces with GMTI radar.
Similarly, the Navy plans to equip approximately 60 Triton
aircraft with a very capable SIGINT suite as a replacement for
the EP-3 towards the end of the decade. The EP-3 is a joint
asset that is allocated under the Global Force Management
Allocation Plan process. The committee believes this capability
should be available to support joint requirements.
The budget request included $375.2 million in PE 35220N for
development of the Triton program. To support the development
of the software modifications to the Triton radar mandated in
the committee provision, the committee recommends an increase
of $5.0 million.
Plan for transfer of Air Force C-12 Liberty Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance aircraft (sec. 934)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to develop and carry out a plan to conduct
the orderly transfer of the Air Force C-12 Liberty
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft
to the Army and to the U.S. Special Operations Command or one
of its components. The plan will ensure there is no impact to
ongoing ISR operations in Afghanistan and around the world. The
provision would also prohibit the Army from acquiring
additional versions of its C-12 ISR system, the Enhanced Medium
Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (EMARSS) in
fiscal year 2014.
In another section of this report, the committee recommends
no authorization for the procurement of four EMARSS aircraft,
but authorizes the same amount to convert transferred Air Force
C-12 Liberty aircraft to the EMARSS configuration.
The Air Force currently possesses 41 C-12 Liberty ISR
aircraft. These aircraft are currently assigned to Air Combat
Command and provide ISR and direct support to ground forces,
including Special Operations Forces. The Army has been pursuing
an Aerial ISR Strategy 2020 which includes a fleet of 24 manned
aerial ISR aircraft based on the C-12 (Beechcraft 350)--
procuring 12 new EMARSS aircraft and recapitalizing 12 existing
Medium Altitude Multi-Intelligence aircraft. These aircraft
will replace the legacy Guardrail systems resulting in the
elimination or retirement of 58 manned ISR platforms.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012 (Public Law 112-81), this committee recommended
transferring Air Force C-12 Liberty ISR aircraft to the Army
but relented at the insistence of the Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence,
and the leadership of the Air Force that the Air Force was
committed to the mission of providing ISR support for ground
forces. However, the attempted transfer of these aircraft by
the Air Force to the National Guard prompted the Army to
restart the EMARSS program.
The committee remains convinced that the Department of
Defense requires only one fleet of C-12-based ISR aircraft to
provide tactical support to ground forces in a permissive air
defense environment and looks forward to reviewing the
Secretary of Defense's plan on transfer and use of its C-12 ISR
aircraft.
Subtitle D--Cyberspace-Related Matters
Authorities, capabilities, and oversight of United States Cyber Command
(sec. 941)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to determine whether U.S. Cyber Command
(CYBERCOM) requires signals intelligence (SIGINT) operational
tasking authority (SOTA) as an inherent and essential aspect of
its operational missions. If the Secretary determines that
CYBERCOM needs SOTA to perform its missions, including military
cyber operations such as maneuvering outside of national U.S.
networks, operational preparation of the environment,
development of targeting packages, and accessing databases held
by the National Security Agency (NSA), the Secretary would
delegate such authority to CYBERCOM in the Secretary's role as
the President's Executive Agent for SIGINT under Executive
Order 12333.
CYBERCOM, like elements of the intelligence community,
requires the ability to access the global Internet for
operational purposes without necessarily exposing those
accesses to potential adversaries. In conflict situations,
CYBERCOM may be called upon to take actions where it is not
possible or necessary to act with stealth, and remain unnoticed
and untraced. CYBERCOM, as a military organization, sometimes
may be required to rapidly overwhelm military targets by massed
action--the very antithesis of non-disruptive activity.
Similarly, CYBERCOM's offensive military forces may need to
train and exercise capabilities to defeat targets not only by
stealthy infiltration but by ensuring that they make use of a
broad range of strategies, including by employing the cyber
equivalent of sudden and overwhelming force. CYBERCOM's
personnel and units may need capabilities, and training, to
rapidly plan and execute potentially large-scale operations
against new or unexpected targets where disruption or
destruction is paramount, not stealth. Test ranges may be
necessary, since CYBERCOM's forces cannot prepare for this type
of operation out on the global Internet. The committee expects
the Secretary to take these unique CYBERCOM requirements--many
of which differ from the requirements of the intelligence
community--into consideration in making the determination
required by this section.
The provision recommended by the committee would require
the Secretary to designate a Senate-confirmed official within
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy with the
responsibility for oversight, and resource management of
offensive cyber forces, including the national mission teams
that will defend the nation by operating external to U.S.
networks.
The committee is concerned that oversight of CYBERCOM and
the cyber mission of the Department of Defense (DOD) is
fragmented and weak. In part, this is unavoidable, inasmuch as
cyber operations affect every segment of the Department, making
clear lines of jurisdiction and responsibility impossible to
draw. One organization is in charge of defensive cybersecurity,
another for cyber intelligence missions, others for technology,
architectures, and acquisition, and another for policy and
operational considerations.
Oversight is further complicated by the varied
organizational structures that the military services apply to
cyber missions. In responding to the Secretary of Defense's
direction to create a large number of cyber mission teams to
conduct national cyber defense, support the combatant commands,
and defend DOD networks, the services are struggling to
classify the personnel who will man these teams. Some of the
services are building offensive forces within existing service
cryptologic organizations and commands, and intend to fund all
such personnel under the Military Intelligence Program (MIP),
while others fund and manage such personnel as they would any
other warfighter. Personnel that will be assigned to teams that
will ``hunt'' for adversaries in the defense of DOD networks
are likely to be funded under the Information Systems Security
Program.
Finally, the provision would require that the Secretary
initiate the process of creating sophisticated training
facilities and capabilities for cyber personnel in the military
services and at CYBERCOM, independently of the intelligence
community. The committee does not believe that offensive
military cyber forces should be funded under the MIP. The
committee is also concerned that the culture and outlook of
signals intelligence collection, which is already overly
dominant in this mission area, may be inappropriate to many
cyber missions.
Joint software assurance center for the Department of Defense (sec.
942)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a joint software assurance
center to serve as a resource for securing the software
acquired, developed, maintained, and used in the Department of
Defense (DOD). The provision would require the Secretary to
consider whether an existing center could fulfill the purposes
of the required center.
The provision would require the Secretary, within 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, to issue a charter for
the center that lays out: (1) the center's role in supporting
program offices in implementing DOD's supply chain risk
management strategy and policies; (2) the center's expertise
and capabilities; (3) the center's management, in coordination
with the Center for Assured Software (CAS) of the National
Security Agency, of a research and development program to
improve the capability of automated software analysis tools;
and (4) the center's management of the procurement and
distribution of enterprise licenses for such analysis tools.
The provision also would require the Secretary to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees, coincident with
the submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2016, on
funding and management of the center, including a
recommendation for the placement of the center organizationally
within the Department.
A report to Congress in October 2011 from the Secretary of
Defense on a strategy for assuring the security of DOD software
and software-based applications indicated that a software
assurance center would be useful to implement DOD's Trusted
Systems and Networks strategy. The report further stated that
an internal DOD study concluded that software vulnerability
detection should be ``organized centrally'' to assure ``a
consistent response, coherent direction, and comprehensive
coverage'' at least until software assurance expertise and
resources are developed and diffused across the Department. The
committee believes that a software assurance center would best
serve as the anchor point for that ``centrally organized''
effort, and the implementation of section 933 of the National
Defense Authorization of Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
The mission of the center would be to educate, train,
equip, and assist program management offices to achieve
security in software developments and acquisitions. These
services would require expertise in software assurance
requirements, design, standards, best practices, technology and
tools for code analysis, penetration testing, training, system
certifications, and vulnerability remediation.
Section 933 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 mandated the use of automated vulnerability
analysis tools during the entire lifecycle of critical DOD
systems. A software assurance center would be a logical choice
for managing the purchase and distribution of licenses for
commercial automated code analysis tools, and for managing the
development of improvements to code analysis tools.
Supervision of the acquisition of cloud computing capabilities for
intelligence analysis (sec. 943)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Under Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence, the Chief Information Officer of
the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Chairman of the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council, to supervise the development
and implementation of plans for the acquisition of cloud
computing capabilities for intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) data analysis in the military services and
defense agencies.
The provision would specifically require plans for meeting
requirements for interoperability and attribute-based access
controls across the ISR cloud systems of DOD components, as
well as for cross-domain enterprise-wide discovery and
correlation of data stored in cloud and non-cloud databases,
relational and non-relational databases, and any future hybrid
or consolidated databases that have features and capabilities
of both relational and non-relational databases. In addition,
the provision would require these plans to be integrated with
the Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise (DI2E), the
Joint Information Environment (JIE), and the Intelligence
Community Information Technology Enterprise (ICITE).
This provision is based in part on recommendations from the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report required by the
House Report which accompanied H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
That report documented that DOD lacks guidance and standards
governing the development of the services' cloud initiatives
for analyzing ISR data and for integrating these activities
with the DI2E, JIE, and ICITE. GAO also noted that, with the
exception of the Army, the services have not yet developed
strategies and implementation plans for their ISR clouds.
Cyber vulnerabilities of Department of Defense weapons systems and
tactical communications systems (sec. 944)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, within 180 days of the enactment of this
Act, to report to the congressional defense and intelligence
committees on the capability of each military service to
operate in a hostile cyber environment. The report would be
required to provide an assessment of the cyber threats to major
weapons systems and tactical communications systems that could
emerge within the next 5 years; an assessment of the cyber
vulnerabilities of major weapons systems and tactical
communications systems; a description of the current strategy
to defend against battlefield cyber attacks; and an estimate of
the costs to correct the vulnerabilities in the future.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has layered defenses for
its desktop computers, laptops, servers, data centers, and
backbone networks, including endpoint or host-based defensive
systems, such as the Host-Based Security System (HBSS).
Tactical networks, and the software elements of battlefield
weapons systems, lack such protections. Such tactical systems
are less readily accessible than the main DOD networks and
computing equipment, and utilize more custom software, but in
principle, they can be accessed and subverted through wireless
communications means or through other wireless apertures, test
equipment or other removable media, and through supply chain
compromise. In important respects, battlefield cyber warfare is
closely related to traditional electronic warfare. It is
critically important for DOD to prepare for this type of
conflict.
As highlighted in a January 2013 report by the Defense
Science Board, DOD's dependence upon networked systems and
components serves as ``a magnet to U.S. opponents'' and if left
unaddressed, threatens our core warfighting capabilities. Every
critical system from ground vehicle electronic systems and next
generation aircraft to satellites and missile defense systems
must be assessed to ensure that critical warfighting
capabilities are not undermined and that the same level of
emphasis placed on developmental and operational security in
the physical domain be adequately addressed and applied in the
cyber domain.
Strategy on use of the reserve components of the Armed Forces to
support Department of Defense cyber missions (sec. 945)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy for using the
reserve components of the armed forces to support the cyber
missions of U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including in support
of civil authorities, and to report to the congressional
defense committees on this strategy within 180 days of the
enactment of this Act.
CYBERCOM was established in 2009. While it has had large
numbers of personnel assigned to execute its defensive mission
to protect Department of Defense (DOD) networks, the number of
qualified personnel available for offensive missions, including
offensive operations in support of defensive missions, has been
negligible.
CYBERCOM has now begun defining the numbers of positions
and their associated specific skills, and the number of units
into which those positions would be grouped, that are initially
required to defend the Nation against major cyber attack,
support the combatant commanders, and actively defend DOD
networks.
The Secretary recently issued a directive to the services
to undertake vigorous action to generate large numbers of such
skilled cyber operators to meet these CYBERCOM manning
requirements (over the next 4 years). The services are still in
the early stages of responding to the Secretary's direction.
DOD is therefore only at the beginning stages of
determining how the reserve components can and should be
integrated into the process for providing a total force
solution to CYBERCOM's manning requirements.
In developing the required strategy, the provision would
require the Secretary to: (1) identify the DOD cyber mission
requirements that could be discharged by members of the reserve
components; (2) in consultation with state Governors, provide
means for the states to provide their evaluation of state
capabilities and the needs of their states for cyber
capabilities that cannot be fulfilled by contracting through
the private sector; (3) identify the existing capabilities of
the reserve components and the current plans of the military
services to utilize them to meet total force resource
requirements; (4) assess whether the National Guard when
activated in state status can operate under unique and useful
authorities to support domestic cyber missions and CYBERCOM
requirements; (5) evaluate the ability of the reserve
components to attract, retain, manage the careers of, properly
train, and organize personnel with substantial cyber technical
expertise from the private sector; (6) develop an estimate of
the costs of the personnel, infrastructure, training, and
operations needed to integrate the reserve components into the
total force solution to CYBERCOM's mission requirements; and
(7) assess the appropriateness of hiring non-dual status
technicians on a part-time basis, who possess appropriate
cybersecurity expertise for purposes of assisting the National
Guard in protecting critical infrastructure and carrying out
cybersecurity missions in defense of the United States
homeland.
The committee notes that there is a large and diverse array
of companies and non-profit organizations in the private sector
that employ people with expertise in cybersecurity. These
organizations not only can provide services to the states for
day-to-day cybersecurity and for crisis and recovery support,
but their employees could potentially provide a wealth of
talent as members of the reserve components to support
CYBERCOM's title 10 missions, including support to civil
authorities. While it is not clear that DOD can attract these
cyber experts to join the reserve components on a large scale,
the potential payoff is so significant that it must be fully
assessed.
The committee also notes, however, that these private
sector resources are not evenly distributed across the country.
Rather, they tend to be geographically concentrated.
Furthermore, by the inherent virtual nature of cyberspace, the
lack of physical proximity to a specific cyber event or network
need not be a major barrier to the provision of support and
collective effort. These factors may have a significant impact
on how reserve component cyber personnel should be organized
and situated.
Control of the proliferation of cyber weapons (sec. 946)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President to establish an interagency process to develop policy
to control the proliferation of cyber weapons through
unilateral and cooperative export controls, law enforcement
activities, financial means, diplomatic engagement, and other
means that the President considers appropriate. The process
should involve subject matter experts from across the
government, including the Department of Defense, the Department
of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the Department of the
Treasury, the Department of State, and the intelligence
community. The provision would require the interagency process
to produce recommendations within 270 days of the enactment of
this Act.
In testimony before the committee and in many other
settings, executive branch civilian and military leaders have
continually pointed to cyber threats as some of the most grave
facing our country. Recent examples of such threats include the
distributed denial of service attacks directed at U.S.
financial institutions and the Shamoon malware cited by former
Secretary of Defense Panetta that rendered 30,000 computers
useless at Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil
company. The types of dangerous software used to perpetrate
these malicious incidents are actively traded on a global black
market, and they are also available in the so-called gray
market, through unscrupulous companies. Through these illicit
channels, it is possible to procure or even rent sophisticated
tools and large-scale infrastructure (such as compromised
computers) to subvert computer systems and networks. This
thriving marketplace is driving research and development of
more advanced cyber capabilities.
In order to address these challenges, the provision would
require the President to determine the types of malicious
software that can and should be controlled through existing
export control schemes. This process will require developing
definitions and categories for controlled cyber technologies
and determining how to address dual-use, lawful intercept, and
penetration testing technologies. After determining which types
of cyber technologies should be controlled, the process should
identify the intelligence, law enforcement, and financial tools
that can be applied to control and contain their development,
proliferation, and use. However, the approaches developed must
also take into account the needs of legitimate cybersecurity
professionals to mitigate vulnerabilities, and not stifle
innovation in tools and technology that are necessary for
national security and the cybersecurity of the Nation.
Finally, the provision would require the President to
develop a statement of principles regarding U.S. positions on
controlling the proliferation of cyber weapons to create new
opportunities for bilateral and multilateral cooperation to
address this shared threat. Such principles could be leveraged
for a multilateral cyber initiative that could build and
operationalize a shared consensus on limiting the spread of
malicious software, increasing accountability, and creating a
foundation for collective action.
Integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace (sec. 947)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President to establish an interagency process to develop an
integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace. The
provision would require the President to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees on this policy within 270
days after the enactment of this Act.
The committee has been pressing for a strategy and doctrine
for deterring adversaries from attacking the United States and
our allies for years. The administration has made some progress
in this area, producing some elements of such a strategy, but
the depth and breadth of the analysis and explanation of the
U.S. posture needs to be significantly improved.
Centers of Academic Excellence for Information Assurance matters (sec.
948)
The committee recommends a provision that would ensure that
Centers of Academic Excellence (CAEs) in Information Assurance
do not lose their certification as CAEs in fiscal year 2014 as
a result of recent changes in the certification criteria
developed by the National Security Agency (NSA). The provision
also would require the President, in consultation with the
Secretary of Education and with the advice of the National
Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, to:
(1) determine whether information assurance has matured to the
point where the Federal Government should no longer serve as
the accrediting authority for information assurance programs at
institutions of higher education; and (2) based on that
determination, reform the current practice of NSA developing
the criteria to guide the curricula and certifying the status
of the CAEs.
The first CAEs for Information Assurance were established
more than a decade ago under the direction of officials on the
National Security Council staff. There are now approximately
165 CAEs across the country, with partnerships extending to
many community colleges. The Department of Defense funds a
scholarship-for-service program at these CAEs, as does the
National Science Foundation.
The guidelines for the curriculum and the criteria for
certifying these CAEs were first developed by NSA under the
direction of the Committee on National Security Systems. These
guidelines and criteria have not been updated since.
In 2010, the administration established the National
Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE), pursuant to
which they assigned responsibility for Formal Cybersecurity
Education to the Secretary of Education and the National
Science Foundation. The widely held expectation was that
modernization of the CAE guidelines and criteria would issue
from the NICE initiative consistent with a Cybersecurity
Workforce Framework developed by the National Institute for
Standards and Technology.
Instead, NSA unilaterally revised the certification
criteria by issuing new draft knowledge units and other
criteria to which the CAEs would be required to align their
curricula. Universities and colleges that were up for renewal
of their certifications would have to realign their programs
immediately.
Many of the CAEs are very concerned about NSA's actions,
and perceive that the new knowledge units are unduly focused on
the highly technical aspects of information assurance, which,
while perhaps appropriate for the specific needs of NSA and the
Department of Homeland Security for government employees, are
not suited for the broad needs of government (at all levels)
and the private sector for cybersecurity professionals. NSA
officials maintain that almost all current CAEs will be able to
qualify under the new guidelines without hardship or
significant expense if they choose to do so. However, a
significant number of the CAEs do not agree.
The committee's provision would provide time to step back
and address fundamental issues. It would also require a
determination whether information assurance programs are now
sufficiently mature to be accredited in the same manner as
other established academic disciplines. Accreditation is
normally managed by the private sector in a peer-driven process
involving institutions and constituencies that serve and are
served by the discipline being taught. Since the CAEs were
created over a decade ago, reliance on the Internet has become
universal and the cyber threat is ubiquitous, affecting the
entire Nation. There are now strong constituencies throughout
government and industry, and peer institutions in academia and
the private sector that have vital interests in the curriculum
and educational capabilities in information assurance in the
Nation's institutes of higher education. They not only deserve
a seat at the table, but they have valuable knowledge and
experience to impart.
The committee notes that a large number of federal
departments have significant cybersecurity education
initiatives underway, and all of government has a vital
interest in cybersecurity. NSA has unique expertise, to be
sure, but no longer a monopoly. At a minimum, a government-
wide, coordinated process should be used to establish curricula
and criteria for designation for the CAEs. It is also possible
that, after reviewing the matter, the President and academia
itself could decide that the time has come for information
assurance to become a recognized academic discipline with an
independent accreditation body and process.
While the President is making these decisions and
establishing a broader and more peer- and constituency-driven
accreditation process, the committee believes that the status
quo for the CAEs should be maintained.
Items of Special Interest
Assessment of multi-year procurement of GPS III satellites
In an effort to reduce acquisition costs, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to assess the
feasibility and advisability of multi-year procurement of the
GPS III satellite system under existing authorities. The
assessment shall be due by February 28, 2014.
Assessment of the costs, risks, and benefits of storage on produced
satellites
For affordability and to ensure manufacturing and
production lines are optimized, the Department of Defense (DOD)
generally buys satellites in block quantities. However, over
the last few decades, data shows that satellites are generally
outliving their expected lifetimes. This often times means that
fully produced satellites sit in storage for extended periods
of time, sometimes more than 5 years. More importantly, it is
not fully known to DOD or the development contractor what
effect storage will have on the eventual operational lifetime
of a satellite. In addition to risk, there are costs associated
with extended storage to include battery replacement,
additional functional testing, and the need to maintain
standing armies of engineers to be on call in the event an
anomaly may occur. Stored satellites have also been launched at
longer intervals to strategically address the late deliveries
of follow on satellite acquisitions. The committee directs the
Comptroller General to assess the costs, risks, and benefits of
storage on produced satellites. The assessment shall include:
(1) an assessment of DOD and contractor data, if any,
on the effects that storage has on the operational
lifetimes of satellites, to include correlations
between years in storage and expected and eventual
satellite lifetimes;
(2) an identification of the costs associated with
satellite storage over the past 5 years as well as
anticipated storage costs over the next 5 years;
(3) an explanation of the steps DOD has taken, if
any, to strategically extend the lifetimes of satellite
constellations, while incurring unanticipated storage
costs; and
(4) the steps that DOD is taking to better understand
storage and its overall effects on satellite
operational lifetimes; and
(5) the strategic benefit of being able to rapidly
reconstitute certain satellites, and if storage is the
most cost effective means for doing so.
The assessment shall be due by April 30, 2014.
Core staff of the National Reconnaissance Office
The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), while a
Department of Defense (DOD) agency, has long been considered a
loose cadre of experts loaned from various defense and
intelligence agencies. This loaning of experts has positive and
negative aspects. The positive aspect of this personnel
rotation is the ability to bring new talent with fresh ideas to
tackle some of the most challenging problems related to space
systems. In fact, DOD personnel who return from a tour at NRO
have developed synergies between these two organizations
leading to a cadre of space professionals, which this committee
believes should be sustained and nurtured by the DOD. Section
912 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 (Public Law 110-181) shows the committee's long-standing
interest in maintaining a space cadre by requiring biennial
reports on the Department's space professionals. The negative
aspect of the personnel rotation program is a constantly
changing workforce that is loaned to a large agency with no
long-term core knowledge base of scientists, engineers,
contracting specialists, and legal staff. Such a core group
within the NRO can carry forward the corporate knowledge as the
majority of the NRO staff rotates to and from their home
agencies. Given that a significant portion of staff at the NRO
is from DOD, the committee looks forward to exploring the
parameters of such a core group of individuals within the NRO
in the upcoming fiscal year.
Estimated cost to relocate spectrum
Testimony before this committee has suggested moving the
Department of Defense (DOD) off spectrum below 3 GHz. The
committee remains skeptical and concerned with the technical
feasibility and risk in such a move. The committee directs DOD
to assess the impact on mission and cost of such a proposed
move and provide a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than February 28, 2014.
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
The Secretary of the Air Force has announced an acquisition
strategy that involves the procurement of 36 rocket cores over
the next 5 years with the availability of an additional 14
cores to be competed for by the incumbent as well as any launch
providers that qualify under Air Force new entrant guidelines.
The committee understands that as a result of the acquisition
strategy, approximately $1.1 billion in cost savings will be
achieved with the block buy of 36 cores and the Air Force is to
be commended for these cost savings. Further, the committee
understands that while the Air Force has completed its New
Entrant Strategy, the other major user of the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), the National Reconnaissance
Office (NRO), has not. The committee will want to compare the
Air Force and the NRO strategies and to understand what
differences there are and why, since both the Air Force and the
NRO will use these 14 cores. Furthermore, the committee expects
the Director of the NRO to consult with the Air Force on any
differences in strategy that significantly deviate from the Air
Force approach.
The committee's understanding from new entrants is that
while they are generally pleased with the strategy, there are
still concerns with the EELV Launch Capability (ELC) funding
and whether it gives an unfair advantage to the incumbent. The
committee will want to understand the nature of the ELC during
competition for the 14 cores in addition to the 36 core block
buy. The committee will look carefully in the out-years as to
the structure of future acquisition strategies and in
particular how the ELC will be structured, assuming there are
multiple launch providers.
Likewise, the committee expects that once a new entrant is
certified it will have to establish the acquisition rigor that
the current incumbent undergoes--business systems that
substantially comply with Department of Defense data
requirements and cost accounting standards, including certified
cost or price data to protect taxpayers' interest that it is
paying a reasonable and appropriate price and Defense
Contracting Audit Agency audits to verify and validate
contractors' systems and data. Certification by the Air Force
must also be closely monitored to ensure technical standards
are consistent with the risk level of the mission prior to
contract award.
Joint Space Operations Center Mission System Program
The committee continues to believe that improvements to the
space situational awareness and space command and control
capabilities of the United States are critical, and the
Department of Defense has the opportunity to achieve efficiency
and cost effectiveness by utilizing, to the maximum extent
possible, readily available commercial and government-developed
capabilities. The committee fully expects the Air Force to
pursue a tailored incremental information technology approach
with priority given to transition from the legacy Space Defense
Operations Center system by 2014.
The committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to,
when appropriate, fully incorporate existing, mature,
commercial technology products in order to replace the legacy
system on an accelerated basis and utilize efficient testing
and validation methods. In addition, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees no later than August 1, 2013,
assessing the Air Force's plan of execution for the Increment 2
schedule, based upon available funding.
Mainframe computer security
The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) operates a
large number of mainframe computers to process and store
critical Department of Defense (DOD) information. These
mainframes are protected by some elements of DOD's layered
cybersecurity defenses, but other layers are absent, in part
because mainframes have unique features and attack vectors for
which standard defense systems and architectures do not apply.
However, DISA's position is that these mainframes do not
require the same level of attention because they have
inherently elevated security, achieved through the rigorous
architecture, engineering, access procedures, and programming
languages applied to mainframe computing.
The committee agrees that mainframe computers have better
built-in security, but disagrees that these enhanced security
features alone are sufficient to provide the level of
protection needed. In addition, the importance of mainframes to
DOD's information enterprise makes them an attractive target.
According to General Keith Alexander, the Commander of U.S.
Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and the Director of the National
Security Agency (NSA), in testimony before the committee,
``there's more work that needs to be done in protecting the
mainframe computers and that portion of the total information
infrastructure.''
The committee directs that CYBERCOM and NSA jointly conduct
a vulnerability assessment of DOD mainframe computers, and make
recommendations to the Chief Information Officer and the
Director of DISA for addressing vulnerabilities that may exist,
within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act.
Modernization of Defense Support Program Mobile Ground System
The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to report to the
congressional defense committees on efforts to modernize the
Defense Support Program Mobile Ground System for integration
into the Space Based Infrared System. The report shall be due
to the congressional defense committees no later than February
28, 2014.
Payload processing services
The committee understands that the Air Force has taken
steps that may undermine competition for payload processing for
the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. Given the
Air Force's initiatives to instill competition in the EELV
program, the committee is concerned that the Air Force has not
taken all appropriate steps to encourage competition for
payload processing services. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force within 90 days of the enactment of
this Act to provide a plan to the congressional defense
committees on how the Air Force intends to ensure competition
in payload processing services.
Report on disaggregation and payload hosting
Much has been stated by the Department of Defense on the
attributes of disaggregating sensors and hosting these payloads
on other satellite systems to potentially reduce cost and
increase survivability. The Government Accountability Office
(GAO) is directed to assess the potential benefits and
drawbacks of disaggregating key military space systems and
examine whether disaggregation and payload hosting offers
either decreased acquisition and life cycle cost and increased
survivability of a constellation compared to more traditional
approaches such as incremental technological improvements of
the existing satellite architecture and the use of block buy or
fixed price acquisition strategy. In particular, the GAO is
directed to examine these concepts on three systems, the Space
Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS), the Advanced Extremely High
Frequency satellite system, and the follow-on defense weather
satellite system. There is precedent with the use of SBIRS
Highly Elliptical Orbit 1 and 2 on hosted payloads. The report
for this effort shall be due by March 31, 2014.
Report on Family of Advanced Beyond Line of Sight Command Terminals for
airborne platforms
There has been much re-scoping of the Family of Advanced
Line of Sight Command Terminals (FAB-T). Originally intended
for ground, command post (air and ground), as well as the B-2
and B-52 aircraft, the committee understands that the Air Force
is now considering only the ground and command post versions of
the terminal. If a version of the terminal is proven feasible
for the B-2 and B-52 aircraft, the committee directs the Air
Force in coordination with U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)
to provide an assessment of whether the requirement for
integrating these terminals into the airframes is still valid
and if the Air Force intends to provide a follow-on FAB-T
capability for these aircraft and by what timeframe. The
assessment shall be due by February 28, 2014 and shall include
the views of the Commander of USSTRATCOM.
Report on North Korea's ability to develop a functional nuclear-armed
long-range ballistic missile
In April 2012, North Korea first displayed what appeared to
be a mobile intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), referred
to as the KN-08, which has not yet been flight tested. In
December 2012, after more than a decade of efforts to launch a
satellite with the Taepo Dong space-launch vehicle (SLV), North
Korea succeeded for the first time in placing a satellite in
orbit with the Taepo Dong-2 SLV, thus demonstrating success
with the development of ballistic missile technology. On
February 12, 2013, North Korea announced that it had
successfully conducted its third nuclear test. As Madelyn
Creedon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic
Affairs, testified to the committee, ``North Korea's long-range
ballistic missile capabilities have advanced rapidly during the
last year. The increased pace of this emerging threat required
the United States to adapt its homeland defense capabilities .
. . . These programs demonstrate North Korea's commitment to
develop long-range missile technology that could pose a direct
threat to the United States.''
These developments have caused concern that North Korea may
be capable of deploying a nuclear-armed long-range ballistic
missile. However, to the best of our knowledge, North Korea has
never flight tested a full production representative long-range
ballistic missile, and has not flight tested the reentry
vehicle or associated nuclear warhead technologies. The
Department of Defense issued a statement in April 2013 that,
``it would be inaccurate to suggest that the North Korean
regime has fully developed and tested'' nuclear weapons capable
of being delivered by ballistic missiles. According to the
Director of National Intelligence, ``North Korea has not yet
demonstrated the full range of capabilities necessary for a
nuclear-armed missile.''
North Korea has clearly made substantial progress on long-
range ballistic missile technology and on developing nuclear
weapons. These are topics of intense interest to the U.S.
Intelligence Community, elements of which have been assessing
these two aspects of North Korea's capabilities separately.
However, there has not yet been an assessment looking at both
North Korea's long-range missile and nuclear warhead
capabilities to provide an integrated assessment of its ability
to produce a working nuclear-armed ICBM.
Consequently, the Director of National Intelligence is
directed to assess the ability and time frame for North Korea
to produce a fully functional long-range ballistic missile
armed with a working nuclear warhead. The assessment shall
consider the challenges of successfully designing, engineering,
and producing a nuclear explosives package that can fit into a
re-entry body, capable of withstanding the full flight
trajectory of a ballistic missile, with fusing that can arm and
detonate the warhead on a target. The assessment should also
identify what, if any, capabilities North Korea may have
achieved.
As part of this assessment, the Director of National
Intelligence is to consult with the Department of Energy on the
physics and engineering of such a nuclear explosives package
that can fit in the reentry body, survive flight trajectory,
and the necessary fusing to arm the warhead. The Director's
assessment shall reflect the views of the Department of Energy.
In the assessment, the Director of National Intelligence
shall provide an estimate of North Korea's status on the
critical technologies to be developed in the nuclear explosives
package, the reentry body, the fuse system, and the estimated
timeframe to assemble a complete and fully functional warhead
on a long-range ballistic missile system. The assessment shall
include any dissenting or minority intelligence community
determinations and shall be completed and provided to the
congressional defense committees and congressional intelligence
committees no later than February 28, 2014.
Report on space situational awareness
The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to conduct a Gap
Analysis on the systems of sensors used for space situational
awareness (SSA), evaluating those: currently employed; in
procurement; and not yet procured, or in the case of the Space
Based Surveillance System, what a future replacement would be
to deliver similar capability at a lower cost. For sensors not
procured, the Secretary is directed to provide the estimated
cost of procurement and the incremental improvement to the SSA
architecture. The Secretary is directed to consider non-
traditional sensors such as sea-based X-band radar integrated
in a net-centric fashion to the Joint Space Operations Center
Mission System. The report for this effort shall be due by
February 28, 2014.
Satellite communications strategy
The Secretary of Defense is directed to provide a report
detailing a 5-, 10-, and 25-year strategy for using an
appropriate mix of Department of Defense (DOD) and commercial
satellite bandwidth. The committee believes considerable
savings can be achieved by purchasing commercial bandwidth in
larger block quantities. However, to date, DOD has been unable
to define the appropriate mix between government provided and
commercially purchased satellite communications and has relied
on more expensive spot market buys. For procuring commercial
satellite bandwidth, the Secretary must recognize that long-
term or capital leasing of commercial bandwidth typically
results in the cost over the life of the lease being net-
present valued by the Congressional Budget Office in year one
of the lease. For multi-year procurement of satellite
bandwidth, issues associated with termination liability will
also present up-front costing challenges in year 1.
Accordingly, as part of the strategy, the Secretary is directed
to consider the use of a capital working fund or other
mechanisms for leasing or multi-year procurement of commercial
bandwidth. These alternative procurement arrangements should
only be used where the use of DOD or other government
satellites are not available or is more costly than in the
private sector. The report shall be due February 28, 2014.
The Government Accountability Office is directed to review
the acquisition strategy of the report no later than 90 days
after submittal of the report.
Satellite control system modernization plan
The committee directs the Air Force to develop a long-term
plan for modernizing its Satellite Control Network and any
future shared satellite control services and capabilities
consistent with the second recommendation found on page 28 of
the Government Accountability Office report ``Satellite Control
Operations'', GAO-13-315. The plan shall be due by April 30,
2014.
Space Based Infrared Satellite, GEO 5 and 6
The committee understands that the Air Force intends to
procure Space Based Infrared Satellites (SBIRS), GEO 5 and 6
using a block buy, fixed price strategy to reduce costs. Such
an acquisition strategy is admirable. However, the committee
understands that SBIRS GEO 5 and 6 is to use much the same
technology as in earlier versions found in GEO 1 and 2. If such
an approach is used, that means that GEO 5 and 6 when launched
in the 2020 timeframe will be using, for instance, focal plane
technology developed in the 1990s, which is 30 years old. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to assess the
technology insertion path for GEO 5 and 6 and whether it is
feasible to insert newer focal plane and other technologies
into GEO 5 and 6 within a block buy acquisition strategy and
the estimated cost. If not feasible, how does the Air force
intend to break the ongoing cycle of technology insertion
maturity versus risk where the cost to develop next generation
satellites becomes cost prohibitive and high risk with long
periods of non-recurring engineering. The assessment shall be
due by February 28, 2014. The committee directs the Government
Accountability Office to review the assessment performed by the
Air Force within 90 days of submission to the committee.
Strategic solid rocket motor industrial base
The committee believes that a healthy industrial base for
strategic solid rocket motors, including multiple providers,
promotes competition, improves vendor performance, and reduces
costs. The committee strongly encourages the Air Force to
promote and maintain the health and competitiveness of this
crucial sector of the industrial base and to make its viability
a key consideration in future acquisition decisions involving
Minuteman III sustainment and the post 2030 Ground Based
Strategic Deterrent.
Trusted agent for spectrum
An important element of working with the Department of
Defense (DOD) and the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory
Committee (CSMAC) is the use of trusted agents; technically
trained individuals from industry with appropriate security
clearances that can work as an interface between industry and
DOD in assessing the ability to share or clear spectrum that is
currently in use by the Department. The committee understands
that the Department has been reviewing the procedures for using
trusted agents. However, the review process has taken an
exceedingly long time, causing delays in the ability of DOD to
effectively work with industry. The committee directs the
Department to report back on the status of implementing
procedures for using trusted agents as part of the CSMAC
process by July 31, 2013.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the transfer of up to $4.0 billion of funds authorized in
division A of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in
accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. Transfers of
funds between military personnel authorizations would not be
counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision.
Department of Defense Readiness Restoration Fund (sec. 1002)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
Department of Defense (DOD) Readiness Restoration Fund in order
to provide the DOD with increased flexibility to transfer funds
that may be available to high priority readiness accounts,
where necessary to address significant shortfalls in funding
otherwise available for the training activities of the armed
forces (including flying hours and steaming days) and the
maintenance of military equipment.
The committee directs the Department to notify Congress
regarding the use of this authority using guidelines similar to
that of notifications to Congress for the use of general
transfer authorities.
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities
Extension of authority to support the unified counter-drug and
counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend, for
2 fiscal years, the authority of the Secretary of Defense to
provide assistance to support the unified counterdrug and
counterterrorism campaign of the Government of Colombia. The
provision would also incorporate an updated notification to
Congress to improve transparency of the Department of Defense's
use of this authority.
The committee notes that the Government of Colombia has
made and continues to make progress combating narcotics
trafficking and designated foreign terrorist organizations.
This type of flexible authority is still required to assist the
Government of Colombia consolidate its hard-fought gains, but
the committee expects to see reductions in the level of
assistance provided to Colombia, as has been agreed to in our
bilateral engagements with the Colombians.
Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to law
enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities
(sec. 1012)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by
2 fiscal years, the support by joint task forces under section
1022(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), as most recently amended by
section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
While the committee continues to be pleased with the
Department's judicious use of this authority, the committee
also believes there are additional activities that could
potentially be conducted, most notably in additional
investments in developing intelligence and supporting other
departments' and agencies' efforts to develop additional
intelligence on the nexus that exists between transnational
criminal organizations and foreign terrorist organizations. The
committee urges the Department to look closely at these matters
in North Africa.
Extension and expansion of authority to provide additional support for
counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments (sec.
1013)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by
5 years, the authority to provide support for counterdrug
activities of certain foreign governments under subsection
(a)(2) of section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as most recently
amended by section 1006 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). The provision
would also expand the list of countries eligible to receive
support to include the Governments of Chad, Libya, Mali, and
Niger.
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Modification of requirements for annual long-range plan for the
construction of naval vessels (sec. 1021)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 231 of title 10, Unites Sates Code, to include a
requirement to report on the total cost of construction for
each vessel used to determine estimated levels of annual
funding in the report, and an assessment of the extent of the
strategic and operational risk to national security whenever
the number or capabilities of the naval vessels in the plan do
not meet requirements.
Report on naval vessels and the Force Structure Assessment (sec. 1022)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees no later than February 1,
2014, that would assess the current fleet capabilities compared
to the threat and the likely situation over the next 30 years.
The CNO should produce an unclassified report, and a classified
annex to that report.
Section 1105 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required the Secretary of
the Navy to provide a comprehensive description of the current
requirements for combatant vessels of the Navy, including
submarines. The Navy submitted that report which reflected
that, while the previous requirement was for a fleet of 313
ships, originally identified in a 2005 Force Structure
Assessment (FSA) and revalidated in 2010, the new requirements
have declined to a total of 306 ships.
Within this seven-ship net decrease to 306 ships, actual
combat power is reduced by six large surface combatants, three
small surface combatants, and four cruise missile submarines,
for a total reduction of 13 combatant ships, offset by an
increase of six command and support ships. The reduction in
cruise missile submarines reflects a Navy plan not to replace
these ships when they retire in the late 2020s.
In congressional testimony this year about the 2012 FSA,
representatives of the Department of the Navy asserted that the
revised fleet size goal considered various factors, including
the revised Defense Strategic Guidance in 2012, changed Navy
mission requirements, different individual ship capabilities,
fleet networking capabilities, and ship basing arrangements and
operational cycles, as opposed to just platforms or numbers of
ships.
The committee notes that the current fleet of 283 battle
force ships provides combatant commanders (COCOM) with a
greater array of fire power than did the Navy fleets of 500 or
more ships of the Cold War era, with precision-guided air-
delivered weapons, numbers of Tomahawk-capable ships, and the
sophistication of command, control, communications, and
computer systems; intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) systems; and networking capabilities that
did not exist during the Cold War.
The President's 2012 revised U.S. defense strategy calls
for a rebalancing towards the Asia-Pacific region, a
predominantly maritime and aerospace domain. This will most
likely increase demands for Navy fleet resources and
deployments in that region in competition with global demand.
Regarding global demands for naval forces, Navy officials
testified last year that fully satisfying COCOM requests for
forward-deployed Navy forces in various regions would require
more than 500 ships.
The Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for
Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2014, dated May 10, 2013,
proposes near-term retirements of cruisers and amphibious
ships, resulting in 270 ships, the smallest fleet since 1917.
The committee is concerned that the plan will not meet the goal
of a 306-ship battle force inventory until 2037 and assumes
risk over the 30-year period, with periodic shortages of
aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, attack submarines, and
amphibious ships. The committee notes that the Navy possesses
only 28 amphibious ships, with an average of only 22 ships
available for surge deployment, despite a Marine Corps
requirement for 38 amphibious ships. As such, the committee is
also concerned that the Navy's shortfall in amphibious ships
adds risk to the Marine Corps' ability to meet current and
future COCOM requests.
There are also risks with the Navy's plan beyond mere
numbers of ships:
(1) within the plan, the Navy intends that the
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) will comprise over one third
of the Navy's total surface combatant fleet by 2028.
This fact compounds risk, since the LCS to date has not
completed operational testing or demonstrated adequate
performance of assigned missions in critical areas of
mine countermeasures, anti-surface warfare, or anti-
submarine operations;
(2) with its decision in the fiscal year 2013 budget
to delay the procurement of the first Ohio-class
replacement ballistic missile submarine by 2 years, to
fiscal year 2021, the Navy has consumed all schedule
margin for replacing the existing Ohio-class boats on a
timely basis, and increased the risk that an unforeseen
event affecting a strategic missile submarine's
operational availability would prevent the Navy from
being able to fully satisfy U.S. Strategic Command
(STRATCOM) requirements; and
(3) the 2012 FSA and the shipbuilding plan do not
account for the possible effects of further budget cuts
under the Budget Control Act of 2011. Various
representatives of the Navy have testified that, if
Department of Defense budgets are reduced below levels
shown in the President's budget request for fiscal year
2014, the Navy will have to reduce the size and
capabilities of the fleet to reflect further changes in
U.S. defense strategy and available Navy resources.
Given the risks inherent in the planned size of the Navy,
the capabilities of the ships planned, the rate of Navy ship
procurement, and the potential affordability of the Navy's
shipbuilding plans at a time of significant uncertainty in
defense budgets, the committee agrees that in order to
adequately assess the ability of the fleet proposed by the 2012
FSA to meet national security requirements, there needs to be
an objective set of standards to assess the ability of the Navy
to meet national security objectives, as opposed to simply
relying on numbers and types of platforms.
The committee also believes that a failure to recapitalize
our sea-based strategic nuclear deterrent on time would have
devastating impacts on deterrence and strategic stability.
Accordingly, the committee directs the CNO to pay particular
attention in producing the report to the Navy's ability to
fully meet STRATCOM requirements.
Repeal of policy relating to propulsion systems of any new class of
major combatant vessels of the strike forces of the United
States Navy (sec. 1023)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). That section requires
that the Navy build any new class of major surface combatant
and amphibious assault ship with an integrated nuclear power
system, unless the Secretary of the Navy notifies the
congressional defense committees that, as a result of a cost-
benefit analysis, it would not be practical for the Navy to
design the class of ships with an integrated nuclear power
system.
As a matter of acquisition management laws and regulations,
the Navy must conduct an analysis of alternatives (AoA) for all
such vessels to determine the ship characteristics, including
the required propulsion and power generation mechanism. The AoA
outcome for each surface combatant and amphibious assault ship
should be based on an independent and objective systems
engineering and business case analysis. Within that analysis,
the Navy can evaluate the advisability of using an integrated
nuclear propulsion system to determine the best value for the
Federal Government.
Clarification of sole ownership resulting from ship donations at no
cost to the Navy (sec. 1024)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subsection (a) of section 7306 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 7306, which governs disposition of vessels stricken
from the Naval Vessel Register, authorizes the Department of
the Navy to donate any vessel stricken from the Naval Vessel
Register. The provision requires that, as a condition of a
donation, donated naval vessels be maintained in a condition
satisfactory to the Secretary of the Navy. The Navy has found
that this statutory requirement presents numerous problems
associated with ownership, maintenance costs, and historic
preservation. The provision would eliminate the statutory
requirement with regard to future donations, but would not
affect prior donation contracts.
The provision clarifies the purpose of any such transfer
would be to operate the vessel as a museum or memorial for
public display in the United States. This additional language
would provide the Navy with the flexibility to oversee a vessel
donee's actions, without any implication that the Navy retains
ownership of the vessel.
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism
Transfers to foreign countries of individuals detained at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to transfer or release Guantanamo
detainees to their country of origin or another country other
than the United States if: (1) the Secretary of Defense has
determined, based on the findings of the Periodic Review Board
process, that the detainee no longer constitutes a threat to
U.S. national security; (2) the transfer or release is required
to effectuate a court order; or (3) the detainee has been tried
in a court or competent tribunal on charges based on the same
conduct that served as the basis for his designation as an
enemy combatant and the detainee has been acquitted of such
charges or has been convicted and served the sentence pursuant
to the conviction.
The provision would also require that for other transfers
of Guantanamo detainees to countries other than the United
States, the Secretary of Defense must determine prior to any
such transfer that actions have been or will be taken that will
substantially mitigate the risk of the detainee re-engaging in
terrorist or other hostile activity against the United States,
and that the transfer is in the U.S. national security
interest. The Secretary would be required to submit a
notification to the appropriate congressional committees not
less than 30 days in advance of the transfer or release,
including a statement of the basis for the transfer or release.
The committee notes that the administration has raised
concerns that the certification requirements Congress has
enacted on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to foreign
countries have made it difficult, if not impossible, to carry
out such transfers. At the same time, the administration has
yet to attempt to transfer any Guantanamo detainee under the
certification requirements or to use the national security
waiver granted under section 1028 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) and
section 1028 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). The committee emphasizes
that the certification requirements for such transfers were
never intended to constitute an absolute prohibition on the
transfer of Guantanamo detainees to countries other than the
United States, and believes the provisions of this section
should help clarify the requirements applicable to such
transfers.
Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States for
emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1032)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of Defense to authorize the temporary transfer of
detainees at the Guantanamo detention facility (GTMO) to a
Department of Defense (DOD) medical facility for the sole
purpose of providing emergency or critical medical treatment
that is not available at GTMO and is necessary to prevent death
or imminent significant injury or harm to the individual's
health. The detainee would not be admitted into the United
States during the period of the medical treatment and must be
returned to GTMO as soon as medically feasible.
The committee notes that the United States is obligated
under domestic law and Common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions to provide for the humane treatment of detainees in
its custody. The authority granted the Secretary of Defense
under this section would address concerns that have arisen
regarding the standard of medical care for GTMO detainees,
particularly as that population ages, and U.S. compliance with
its obligations to provide humane treatment.
Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1033)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through fiscal year 2014 the prohibition under section 1027 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 1911) on the transfer or release
of detainees held at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba (GTMO) to or within the United States, its
territories, or possessions. The provision would also authorize
the Secretary of Defense to waive this prohibition for the
transfer of GTMO detainees to the United States for detention
and trial if: (1) the Secretary determines that such a transfer
is in the national security interest of the United States; (2)
steps have been taken to address any risk to public safety; and
(3) the appropriate congressional committees are notified not
later than 30 days in advance of any such transfer to the
United States.
Clarification of procedures for use of alternate members on military
commissions (sec. 1034)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, on military
commissions to clarify the authority and procedures by which
the convening authority may detail alternate members to a
military commission. The provision would also clarify the
military judge's discretion to grant both parties additional
peremptory challenges as may be required in the interests of
justice.
Subtitle E--Nuclear Forces
Modification of responsibilities and reporting requirements of Nuclear
Weapons Council (sec. 1041)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 179 of title 10, United States Code, by striking the
responsibilities for nuclear command, control, and
communications since other sections of this Act establishes a
Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command,
Control, and Communications System. The provision adds a new
responsibility to report on joint activities between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy on nuclear
security.
Modification of deadline for report on plan for nuclear weapons
stockpile and nuclear weapons complex (sec. 1042)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), which provides for a
report to the congressional defense committees with a 10-year
funding profile for the Department of Energy's (DOE) and the
Department of Defense's (DOD) strategic deterrent modernization
program. Specifically, the provision would give both
departments 60 days after budget submission to deliver the
section 1043 report. If a delay is anticipated that is greater
than 60 days, DOE and DOD must notify the congressional defense
committees before the President's budget submission and provide
a briefing no later than 30 days after budget submission. The
committee expects the briefing to be detailed enough and
consistent with section 1043 to enable the congressional
defense committees to conduct their oversight duties.
Last year, the section 1043 report was submitted to the
congressional defense committees on May 7, 2012, more than 60
days past the fiscal year 2013 budget submission and without
the 10-year projection by DOE which Congress never received.
This year, Congress received the 10-year DOE projection but has
not received the 10-year DOD budget projection nor the section
1043 report.
The revised requirements recommended by the committee
should be sufficient to accommodate the interagency
coordination process between DOD and DOE. If DOD and DOE fail
to meet the standard of reasonableness laid out in this
provision the committee will legislate with stronger measures.
Cost estimates and comparisons relating to interoperable warhead (sec.
1043)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Department of Defense Cost Analysis and Program
Evaluation to estimate life extensions of the W-78 and W-88
warheads and compare that to the interoperable warhead that is
to replace both systems. In addition the provision would direct
a cost estimation of the W-87 warhead. No funds may be spent
past phase 6.2A for the interoperable warhead until the cost
comparison with straight life extensions of the W-88 and W-78
warheads has been completed and submitted to the congressional
defense committees, which is to be no later than April 1, 2014.
Sense of Congress on ensuring the modernization of United States
nuclear forces (sec. 1044)
The committee recommends a provision that states it is the
policy of the United States to modernize or replace the nuclear
triad and sustain the nuclear stockpile, its production
facilities, and science base.
Readiness and flexibility of intercontinental ballistic missile force
(sec. 1045)
The committee recommends a provision that states the
Secretary of Defense may in a manner consistent with
international obligations, retain missile launch facilities
currently supporting up to 800 deployed and non-deployed
strategic launchers, maintain intercontinental ballistic
missiles (ICBM) on alert or operationally deployed status, and
preserve ICBM silos in operational or warm status. A report is
required not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act on the feasibility and advisability of
preserving ICBM silos in operational or warm status.
Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations
National security spectrum strategy (sec. 1051)
The committee recommends a provision that would require a
national security spectrum strategy to be performed at least
once every 5 years. The strategy is to provide near-term (5
years), mid-term (10 years), and long-term (30 years)
assessments of the need for national security spectrum.
Department of Defense representation in dispute resolution regarding
surrender of Department of Defense bands of electromagnetic
frequencies (sec. 1052)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1062(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106-65) to require that the
Department of Defense be adequately represented to convey its
views with the interagency process for spectrum allocation.
Sense of Senate on parental rights of members of the Armed Forces in
child custody determinations (sec. 1053)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that State courts should not consider
military deployment as the sole factor in determining child
custody in a State court proceeding involving a parent who is a
member of the armed forces. The best interest of the child
should always prevail in custody cases, but members of the
armed forces should not lose custody of their children based
solely upon service to our country.
Subtitle G--Studies and Reports
Repeal and modification of reporting requirements (sec. 1061)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal or
modify a number of reporting requirements that have been
included in law in past years. The requirements recommended for
repeal or modification in this provision are requirements
identified by the committee as being no longer relevant or
necessary and that can be repealed or modified without
adversely affecting the committee's oversight responsibilities.
Report on plans for the disposition of the Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected vehicle fleet (sec. 1062)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to provide a report on the Department's
analysis and plans for the disposition and sustainment of its
fleet of mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles. The
committee is aware that long-term plans for the distribution
and sustainment of the fleet have been studied by the
Department of Defense and each of the military departments.
Given the significant investment in MRAP vehicles over the last
10 years, the committee wants to understand the Department's
management and funding plans for MRAP disposal, retention,
integration, and sustainment including modernization or
upgrades, if any, necessary to meet current or future
survivability and mobility requirements.
Report on foreign language support contracts for the Department of
Defense (sec. 1063)
The committee recognizes that Department of Defense (DOD)
operations require personnel with a range of foreign language
skills and regional expertise, such as translation and
interpretation capabilities. As evidenced in recent operational
experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, these capabilities can be
critical factors to mission success. Further, the committee
believes that changes to the size and location of DOD's
overseas presence, such as forward-stationed or deployed
military forces, and a renewed emphasis on developing
partnerships, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region and
Africa, indicate that DOD will likely need to continue its
significant investments in acquiring foreign language-related
support for the foreseeable future. However, in the face of
current fiscal pressures and budgetary constraints, the
committee also believes that DOD has a heightened need to
maximize efficiencies and that one way to achieve greater
efficiencies is through more coordinated acquisition
approaches.
Over the years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
identified opportunities for DOD to improve its approach to
contracting from a broad perspective as well as in areas
related to foreign language support. For example, DOD contract
management remains on the GAO's list of high-risk areas in the
Federal Government and, in its 2013 annual report to Congress
highlighting areas in the Federal Government where duplication,
overlap, and fragmentation exist, and where programs may be
able to achieve greater efficiencies in providing government
services, GAO identified DOD's management of foreign language
support contracts as one of 31 areas in the Federal Government
where greater efficiencies might be achieved.
At that time, GAO reported that DOD had obligated over $6.8
billion from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 on contracts to
acquire foreign language-related services and products for its
forces. GAO also noted that DOD had centralized the contracting
for certain foreign language-related services and products
under an executive agent and had realized some efficiencies,
but that the executive agent's focus had been exclusively on
translation and interpretation services and that DOD had not
taken steps to comprehensively assess whether additional
opportunities existed to gain efficiencies in fragmented
contracts for other types of foreign language support which are
estimated to cost more than $1.0 billion annually. Other GAO
work has found that agencies, including DOD, reported savings
ranging between 5 and 20 percent by implementing more
coordinated acquisition approaches rather than fragmented
contracting. Therefore, on the basis of the level of DOD's
considerable investment in contracts for foreign language
support both now and in the future, the committee believes DOD
may be able to achieve significant cost savings by
comprehensively assessing whether additional opportunities
exist to gain efficiencies in fragmented contracts for all
types of foreign language support.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that
would direct the Secretary of Defense to assess the
Department's current approach for managing foreign language
support contracts. At a minimum, such an assessment should
include an analysis of spending for all the types foreign
language support services and products that have been acquired
by DOD components and a reevaluation, based on the results of
the analysis of spending, of the scope of the DOD executive
agent's management of foreign language support contracts to
determine whether any adjustments are needed.
Civil Air Patrol (sec. 1064)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to produce a report on the Civil Air
Patrol (CAP) that would assess certain aspects of the current
CAP aircraft program, including: (1) what is the requirement
for the total fleet of CAP aircraft; (2) how are those
requirements for CAP aircraft derived; and (3) how are CAP
aircraft allocated among that various operating locations. The
Secretary should submit this report with the fiscal year 2015
budget request. The committee understands that the Secretary of
the Air Force is considering options to reduce the size of the
CAP, but believes that the Secretary should conduct a more
thorough assessment of requirements before making any final
decision on these options.
Eagle Vision system (sec. 1065)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Chief of Staff of the Air Force, within 180 days of the
enactment of this Act, to submit to the congressional defense
committees and intelligence committees a report on the Eagle
Vision imagery ground station. The report elements would
include a description and assessment of the Department of
Defense organizations to which the Eagle Vision system could be
transferred, as well as the actions that would need to be taken
prior to a transfer, the potential schedule for a transfer, and
the possible effects of a transfer on the capabilities or use
of the system. The provision would prohibit the Air Force from
making changes to the organization and management of the
program until 90 days after the submission of the report to
Congress.
Subtitle H--Other Matters
Extension of the Ministry of Defense Advisor Program (sec. 1081)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) to extend the authority of
the Secretary of Defense for 5 fiscal years, to advise foreign
defense ministries. The provision would also extend the
requirement of the Secretary of Defense to provide an annual
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, and would provide the Comptroller
General of the United States an additional year to conduct the
evaluation of the effectiveness of the program under the
original authority.
The committee supports the request of the Department of
Defense (DOD) to extend this authority in order to ensure that
they can effectively attract personnel to the program and
determine whether this program and its associated activities
could prove successful in implementing the priorities of the
Secretary of Defense in high priority countries around the
world. However, the committee is aware of concerns and
recommendations raised by the DOD Inspector General about the
financial management of a nearly identical program being
conducted in Afghanistan pursuant to a different authority. The
committee urges the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to
ensure that the matters raised by the DOD Inspector General
about the similar program in Afghanistan are addressed promptly
and that those modifications are incorporated into the
management processes of the program conducted pursuant to
section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
Further, the committee notes that to date, DOD has not
deployed any personnel under this authority and that the first
planned deployment will be to Montenegro. The committee hopes
the Department will review the prospective deployment of
officials under this authority to ensure that each deployment
will be to a nation where the United States and the prospective
partner have significant mutual security interests.
Items of Special Interest
Airborne Nuclear Command Post
The Secretaries of the Navy and Air Force are directed to
report to the congressional defense committees on efforts to
modernize the Airborne Nuclear Command Post and the Airborne
Launch Control System, including system electronics and
trainers. The report shall also outline how a modernization
plan will provide for battle staff training. The report shall
be due to the congressional defense committees no later than
February 28, 2014.
Air Force weapons storage areas
The committee strongly supports the Air Force decision to
move forward with reconstituting nuclear Air Force bases with
weapons storage areas (WSA). Reconstituting WSA will provide a
second nuclear weapons storage capability for Air Force Global
Strike Command and provide necessary survivability of the
Nation's enduring strategic nuclear deterrents. Given the Air
Force's 15-year proposal, the committee requests the Secretary
of the Air Force to provide an up-to-date report detailing the
reexamined plans, including requirements and costs, for
reconstituting a second nuclear weapons storage capability for
nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missiles, as well as the
potential benefits of such a reconstitution and potential
savings or benefits achieved through shortening the timeframe.
Army force structure and installation alignment
The committee is aware that beginning in January 2007, in
response to the demands for the support of operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan, the active duty Army grew by 65,000 soldiers
and five combat brigades. To accommodate this growth the Army
initiated a variety of programs, including facilities
improvements and military construction, necessary to house and
train these additional forces.
As force requirements for Iraq have concluded and for
Afghanistan have declined, in January 2012 the President
announced the Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG) in which the
active duty Army would decrease by 80,000 soldiers and
inactivate up to eight combat brigades by the end fiscal year
2017. At the same time the Army is reducing end strength and
combat brigade force structure, it is likely to change the
structure of the remaining infantry and armor combat brigades
by adding to some a third maneuver battalion.
The committee is concerned that end strength and force
structure reductions and changes so soon after efforts to
accommodate growth may result in the misalignment of remaining
forces with installations and facilities to maximize the
readiness and the quality of life of soldiers and their
families. In this regard, the Subcommittee on Airland, in a
March 2013 letter, requested a Government Accountability Office
(GAO) assessment of the Army's analysis and decision-making
processes associated with planned force structure reductions
and their alignment with installations.
As a supplement to this work by the GAO, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Army, or designee, to brief the
congressional defense committees, not later than October 1,
2013, explaining how the Army is maximizing existing
installation capacities and capabilities, including facilities
related to combat brigade training and readiness, to meet
future force requirements.
Counter threat finance efforts
Counter threat finance (CTF) leverages the capabilities of
the interagency to help detect, deter, disrupt, and destroy
terrorist organizations and those supporting terrorism by
targeting the foundation of their operations, their financial
resources. CTF is a critical component of the United States
Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, which was
released on July 25, 2011. The Department of Defense (DOD) has
played a significant role in interagency CTF efforts in both
Iraq and Afghanistan, and continues to develop and expand its
ability to disrupt our adversaries both on and off the
battlefield. Pursuant to the DOD CTF Directive (DODD 5205.14)
issued in August 2010, DOD has recognized the CTF discipline as
an essential tool in combating criminal networks and terrorist
organizations worldwide, and has outlined a plan to integrate
this capability into its doctrine, strategy, and operational
planning.
The committee recognizes DODD 5205.14 as a welcome step
towards institutionalizing the successful efforts of the joint
interagency CTF cells in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraq Threat
Finance Cell (ITFC) under joint DOD-Department of Treasury
leadership and the Afghan Threat Finance Cell (ATFC) under Drug
Enforcement Agency leadership both led efforts to identify and
disrupt funding sources supporting insurgent and terrorist
organizations, aided in the identification of key insurgency
members and enablers, and supported threat finance intelligence
(TFI) collection and analysis. It is important for DOD to
ensure that lessons learned from these initiatives are captured
and institutionalized to build upon successes and mature DOD's
capability to apply the CTF discipline to new problem sets. DOD
must be able to integrate with, support, and enable other law
enforcement and government agencies' CTF activities. Moreover,
it is important that DOD, in accordance with DODD 5205.14,
operationalize TFI and CTF efforts in a way that prevents
duplication and maximizes effectiveness.
As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than
180 days after enactment of this Act, a report outlining each
CTF and TFI activity currently being planned or conducted by
DOD. Each summary should include a detailed description of the
activity, identification of lead and supporting agencies, both
within and outside DOD, a description of each agency's role,
the level and source of funding associated with each activity,
a description of the desired outcomes from each activity, and a
description of how this activity aligns with the goals of
existing interagency strategies to find terrorism, corruption,
crimes, narcotics, and other transnational threats, including
United States Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime.
The report should also include a summary of operational
lessons, best practices, and tools employed in ITFC and ATFC
efforts and how they can be replicated to advance other DOD CTF
missions, as well as a description of the efforts, both within
DOD and between DOD and other relevant agencies, to foster
communication and ensure integrated support to interagency
partners. Further, the report should contain the Secretary's
assessment of the progress made to date in the implementation
of DODD 5205.14, any current gaps in DOD's CTF capabilities and
authorities, and any other information the Secretary deems
appropriate. The report shall be in unclassified form, but may
include a classified annex, if warranted.
Department of Defense support to U.S. diplomatic facilities overseas
While the Department of Defense (DOD) does not have primary
responsibility for the security of American diplomatic
facilities around the globe, it does provide the State
Department and other departments and agencies--on an as-
requested basis--support to ensure they can fulfill its varying
security requirements. The committee recognizes the value of
these facilities--including facilities in high-risk/high-threat
locations--in establishing a U.S. presence in such areas, not
only for diplomatic objectives but also for essential national
defense missions. For this reason, it is critical that DOD be
both funded and postured to fulfill its commitments as a
supporting agency.
One element of this support is the United States Marine
Security Guard Program. Section 404 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239)
required the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of
the mission of the Marine Security Guard Program, and to report
to Congress by October 1, 2013, on the results of this review.
The provision also required the Secretary to develop a plan to
increase the number of Marines in the Marine Security Guard
Program by up to 1,000 personnel to improve security at our
embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic facilities. The
budget request for fiscal year 2014 begins implementation of
that requirement.
In addition, the State Department's Accountability Review
Board (ARB) recommended that the State Department and DOD
identify additional flexible Marine Corps Security Guard
structures and provide more capabilities and capacities at
higher risk posts. DOD has already started to address this
recommendation by: (1) forward deploying and adjusting the
alert posture of security augmentation forces in the most
volatile areas; (2) supporting the State Department's efforts
to look at hardening facilities and reassessing diplomatic
security; and (3) enhancing intelligence collection and
ensuring that military forces in critical areas are prepared to
respond to crisis, if necessary. The committee endorses these
improvements and directs the Secretary to submit a report to
the committee by no later than August 1, 2013, on DOD's
implementation of these measures, as well as any additional
steps that should be taken to ensure we are doing everything
possible to protect our personnel and facilities abroad.
Fiscal priorities
The committee notes that on May 17, 2013 the Department of
Defense (DOD) submitted two reprogramming actions to the
congressional defense committees totaling $9.6 billion. Of
this, $7.3 billion of the transfers seek to offset shortfalls
in fiscal year 2013 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
funding. These shortfalls have occurred because operating tempo
exceeds the level anticipated in the fiscal year 2013 budget;
transportation costs are higher due to unanticipated problems
with the Ground Lines of Communication; and fuel costs are
higher. The Department has informed the committee that even if
the congressional defense committees approve all the items in
these reprogramming actions that the services will still face a
fiscal year 2013 OCO shortfall totaling $3.7 billion.
The committee notes that the pending reprogramming actions
include $3.4 billion in DOD base budget to OCO transfers and
will exhaust nearly all of the transfer authority available to
the Department. The Department will not leave troops in combat
without fuel or ammunition or any needed item. Without relief
to these shortfalls, the Department will have to implement
additional reductions to base operation and maintenance
accounts to ensure the warfighter will have what they need on
the front lines. The result will be to further exacerbate the
already serious problems that face DOD as a result of
sequestration.
DOD faces serious problems due to sequestration, affecting
every individual in the Department. The Department has issued
furlough notices to nearly 700,000 civilian employees--roughly
85 percent of its workforce--to begin furlough for one day per
week beginning on July 8, 2013, and lasting through the end of
the fiscal year. Civilian furloughs impact everything from DOD
schools to military medical facilities to military family
support programs.
Active duty, Reserve, and National Guard members are also
feeling the brunt of sequestration. As we have heard from
senior leader testimony this spring, the Army has already
cancelled two-thirds of its training. As a result of
sequestration cuts to flying hours, civilian furlough actions,
and facilities sustainment, the Army will feel readiness
impacts into fiscal year 2014 with many active component units
untrained for immediate deployment, a backlog of aviation
training, deferred reset of equipment, and cancelled training
courses.
In fiscal year 2013, the Air Force has a $4.4 billion
shortfall in its operations and maintenance accounts, impacting
flying hours and readiness. As a result, the Air Force has
already grounded one-third of fighter and bomber squadrons, and
warns that it will be in a state of ``tiered readiness,''
diminishing combat readiness to be able to respond to
contingencies. As a result of shortfalls in its operation and
maintenance accounts, the Navy had to make decisions to
maintain its readiness, by deferring the deployment of the USS
Truman to the Middle East, and deferring critical ship
maintenance and repair in the third and fourth quarter. As a
result, by the end fiscal year 2013, two-thirds of Navy non-
deployed ships and aviation squadrons will be less than fully
mission capable and not certified for combat operations.
Sequestration impacts the DOD's ability to respond to
contingencies, resource its defense strategy, and plan for the
future. It threatens stability in the defense industrial base,
threatening a lost investment in a skilled workforce that is
critical to national security.
Domestic agencies also face serious problems due to
sequestration, including severe cuts to Head Start programs,
both on the side of educators and children enrolled in the
program. Head Start serves over a million disadvantaged
children and their families each year. Crippling cuts in other
domestic agencies are extremely counterproductive, at a time
when the economy is still recovering. All domestic agencies are
harmed by sequestration, and there are counterproductive
impacts on students, our education system, small businesses,
infrastructure, homeland security, and the general economy.
These are all also fundamental underpinnings to our national
security. Sequester threatens harm to all.
Therefore, the committee strongly encourages Congress and
the Administration to work together to repeal sequestration and
replace it with strategic and credible deficit reduction.
Ground Based Strategic Deterrent
The committee supports the Air Force's evaluation of
possibilities for Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) to
follow the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile
(ICBM), but shares the concerns expressed by the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, Madelyn R.
Creedon, when she testified at a Subcommittee on Strategic
Forces hearing on April 17, 2013, that: ``I know this has taken
a lot longer than we anticipated. But, one of the things that
we want to make sure that we fully examined is all the
options,'' as well as the concerns expressed by Lieutenant
General James M. Kowalski, USAF, Commander of the Air Force
Global Strike Command, when he testified at the same hearing
that: ``we had some bureaucratic delays as the study plan went
back and forth. The study is about to begin.'' The
administration's 2010 Nuclear Posture Review stated that:
``studies to inform that decision [on a follow-on ICBM] are
needed now.''
The committee believes it is important that the Air Force
complete its review in 2014 and expeditiously brief the
congressional defense committees on its results.
In the interim, the committee directs the Air Force to
brief the congressional defense committees no later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act on the Analysis of
Alternatives for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent,
including its terms of reference.
Impact of B-61 program delay
Testimony before this committee by the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) stated that the first production
unit of the B-61 Mod 12 will be in 2019. However testimony this
year to the committee by the Sandia Laboratory Director Paul
Hommert has stated ``From what I can tell now, as a result of
sequestration in '13, and what we have seen in the '14 budget,
we are going to slip off that plan . . . not dramatically . . .
but in my view we will see schedule impact.''
Given the uncertainty of sequestration and continuing
resolutions and their possible impact on the 2019 date, the
committee directs the Department of Defense in consultation
with the NNSA to develop a joint plan to mitigate the impact to
the existing stockpile of fielded B-61 weapons in the event
that the first production units fail to meet the 2019 date. The
mitigation plan shall include technical mitigation details and
estimated costs for each year of delay. The mitigation plan
shall be due no later than February 28, 2014.
Reforming the security classification system
Multiple independent commissions over the last two decades
have stressed the need for reform of the security
classification system, noting that the system that has evolved
since World War II is overly complex, and leads to over-
classification, depriving citizens unnecessarily of information
about their government's operations. In 2000, Congress
established the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB),
with distinguished members appointed by the President and the
leadership of both parties in the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
In 2009, in his Implementing Memorandum for Executive Order
13526, the President directed the PIDB to work with the
National Security Advisor to design a transformation of the
security classification system. After a long period of study,
in November 2012, the PIDB submitted its report to the
President, which included a recommendation for the White House
to establish a steering committee to implement the recommended
reforms.
The PIDB report, titled ``Transforming the Security
Classification System,'' states that the current system,
designed for manual processing in the pre-digital era, is
breaking under the increasing pace and volume of data generated
today. According to the PIDB report, a single intelligence
agency classifies a petabyte of information every 18 months.
One petabyte is equivalent to approximately 20 million filing
cabinets filled with text or about 13.3 years of high
definition video. The cost of managing and securing these
records government-wide has doubled over the past decade from
$4.7 billion in 2001 to $11.4 billion in 2011.
Reforming current practices will require active
participation from stakeholders across the national security
community. The committee expects the Department of Defense to
be a meaningful participant in any future interagency effort to
overhaul security classification processes and systems. The
committee also directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense to
review the PIDB report and provide an assessment of the PIDB
recommendations to the congressional defense committees and the
congressional intelligence committees within 180 days of the
enactment of this Act.
Report on reductions to the fiscal year 2014 defense budget to meet the
savings requirement established by the Budget Control Act
The fiscal year 2014 budget request and the fiscal year
2014 budget resolutions passed by the Senate and the House of
Representatives all assume that sequestration currently
required by the Budget Control Act (Public Law 112-25) will be
avoided in fiscal year 2014. To date, there has been virtually
no sign of movement toward a bipartisan agreement that would
vitiate sequestration in fiscal year 2014. In the absence of
such an agreement the Department of Defense (DOD) will face an
across-the-board reduction of $52.0 billion early next year.
Virtually every DOD witness who has come before the
Committee on Armed Services this year has testified that an
additional round of sequestration in fiscal year 2014 would be
devastating for the Department. Despite this testimony many
members of Congress and the public seem to believe that
sequestration is an effective way to cut government spending
and can be made workable by providing the Department with
additional flexibility of making minor adjustments.
The committee believes that there is an increasing risk
that DOD and other federal agencies will face sequestration
again in fiscal year 2014. Understanding the consequences of
another sequestration is important to avoiding it. For this
reason, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees no
later than July 1, 2013, that describes in detail a package of
reductions to the fiscal year 2014 defense budget that the
Secretary believes to be the most workable approach for meeting
the $52.0 billion savings requirement established by the Budget
Control Act. The report should also discuss the impact on the
Department of Defense and on military readiness if the
Secretary is required to implement sequestration cuts in fiscal
year 2014.
Strategic Automated Command and Control System Modernization Plan
The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to report to the
congressional defense committees on efforts to modernize the
Strategic Automated Command and Control System, including
system electronics and trainers as well as integration into the
new United States Strategic Command Headquarters. The report
shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later
than February 28, 2014.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
Extension of voluntary reduction-in-force authority for civilian
employees of the Department of Defense (sec. 1101)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3502(f)(5) of title 5, United States Code, to extend
through September 30, 2018 the authority of the Secretary of
Defense or the secretary of a military department to allow
certain civilian employees to volunteer for reduction-in-force
separations.
Extension of authority to make lump sum severance payments to
Department of Defense employees (sec. 1102)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 5595(i)(4) of title 5, United States Code, to extend
until October 1, 2018 the authority for the Secretary of
Defense or the secretary of a military department to pay the
total amount of severance pay to an eligible civilian employee
in one lump sum.
Expansion of protection of employees of nonappropriated fund
instrumentalities from reprisals (sec. 1103)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1587(b) of title 10, United States Code, to align
protections from reprisals for employees of nonappropriated
fund instrumentalities with protections from reprisals for
other Department of Defense civilian personnel.
Extension of enhanced appointment and compensation authority for
civilian personnel for care and treatment of wounded and
injured members of the Armed Forces (sec. 1104)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1599c of title 10, United States Code, to extend
through December 31, 2020, the existing authority of the
Secretary of Defense to exercise any authority for the
appointment and pay of health care personnel under chapter 74
of title 38, United States Code, for purposes of recruitment,
employment, and retention of civilian health care professionals
for the Department of Defense. The provision would repeal the
now-obsolete section 1599c requirement for the service
secretaries to develop and implement a strategy to disseminate
the authorities and best practices for the recruitment of
medical and health professionals.
Amount of educational assistance under Science, Mathematics, and
Research for Transformation Defense Education Program (sec.
1105)
The committee recommends a provision, based upon a
Department of Defense (DOD) legislative proposal, that would
increase the flexibility of the Secretary of Defense to
determine the amount of the financial assistance delivered by
the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation
(SMART) program.
The committee acknowledges the DOD's request to also allow
this program to accept non-U.S. citizens, as SMART scholarship
recipients. While the committee recognizes that DOD needs the
flexibilities to attract the best and brightest scientists and
engineers, it notes that DOD does not appear to have a strategy
to hire these students into DOD laboratories--given that the
SMART program requires one year of DOD employment for each year
of financial assistance. Hence, the committee directs the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering,
working with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, to develop a strategy that would address how it
would hire those non-U.S. citizens that would be funded by the
SMART program and provide a report to the congressional defense
committees within 180 days of the enactment of this Act. With
such a strategy in place, the committee would give additional
consideration of this proposed authority.
Flexibility in employment and compensation of civilian faculty at
certain additional Department of Defense schools (sec. 1106)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1595(c) of title 10, United States Code, to add the
Defense Institute for Security Assistance Management and the
Joint Special Operations University to the list of Department
of Defense schools at which the Secretary of Defense may employ
and compensate civilian faculty as the Secretary considers
necessary.
Temporary authority for direct appointment to certain positions at
Department of Defense research and engineering facilities (sec.
1107)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow
Department of Defense laboratories direct hire authority for
qualified candidates possessing a bachelor's degree as well as
qualified veteran candidates. This authority would sunset on
December 31, 2019.
Modernization of titles of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities for
purposes of certain civil service laws (sec. 1108)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2105(c) of title 5, United States Code, to remove the
reference to Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service and Navy
Ship's Stores Ashore and replace it with the Navy Ships Stores
Program in order to provide a more accurate and current
definition of nonappropriated fund instrumentality employees.
Item of Special Interest
Department of Defense civilian leadership programs
The committee notes that section 1112 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) required the Secretary of Defense to establish a Department
of Defense (DOD) Civilian Leadership Program in order to
recruit individuals with the academic merit, work experience,
and demonstrated leadership skills needed for the Department's
civilian employee workforce. The statute further mandates that
program participants must include both entry-level and
midcareer individuals.
The committee understands that DOD currently provides three
programs for civilian leadership development: (1) the Defense
Civilian Emerging Leader Program (DCELP) for entry-level
employees; (2) the Executive Leadership Development Program
(ELDP) for midcareer employees; and (3) the Defense Senior
Leader Development Program for senior employees. The committee
has learned that DOD has cancelled the remainder of the
scheduled training for the ELDP as a result of implementing
sequestration guidance on training and travel restrictions, and
that DOD does not believe the ELDP is a leader development
program required by law.
The committee believes that all three of these leadership
development programs are important and that the ELDP fulfills
the statutory mandate set forth by section 1112 in the same way
as the DCELP. Therefore, the committee expects the Department
to robustly pursue all three of these civilian leadership
development programs in future years.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training
Modification and extension of authorities relating to program to build
the capacity of foreign military forces (sec. 1201)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through September 30, 2018, the authority under section 1206 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
(Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3456), as amended, for the
Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
State, to carry out a program to build the capacity of foreign
military forces to conduct counterterrorism operations or to
participate in or support military and stability operations in
which the United States is a participant. The provision would
require a report by the Secretary of Defense in consultation
with the Secretary of State that delineates the scope of
counterterrorism operations for which assistance is authorized
to be provided under section 1206 of Public Law 109-163, to
include purpose, activities, and measures of effectiveness. The
report also requires a prioritized list of threats to be
addressed in order to ensure that assistance is focused on the
highest priority threats within a regional and global strategic
framework.
Revisions to Global Security Contingency Fund authority (sec. 1202)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
certain technical amendments to the authority for the Global
Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) under section 1207 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1625).
The GSCF is intended to provide the Department of State and
the Department of Defense (DOD) a flexible authority to enable
a timely response to security challenges that may arise outside
the normal budget planning process. The committee is concerned,
therefore, about the lengthy delays in standing up this program
due to a range of bureaucratic issues, such as legal
interpretations of GSCF authorities, which have contributed to
the program's failure to date to initiate any projects under
GSCF. The committee understands that concerns have arisen about
how broadly to interpret the types of assistance authorized
under the program. It is the committee's view that the GSCF's
authority to provide training should be understood broadly to
include educational activities, professional guidance, and
ministerial-level institutional advice.
The committee understands that another issue that has
contributed to delays in standing up the GSCF program is the
need for further clarification of the appropriate level of
programmatic detail required in the congressional notification
process. The committee believes that the notification processes
that have been developed under other similar security
assistance authorities, such as the Global Train and Equip
program under section 1206 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119
Stat. 3456), as amended, have provided an appropriate level of
congressional notification and should serve as a guide for the
notification process under the GSCF program. The committee
hopes that the Department of State and DOD will continue to
consult closely with this committee should issues relating to
the GSCF arise in the future.
Training of general purpose forces of the United States Armed Forces
with military and other security forces of friendly foreign
countries (sec. 1203)
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
Secretary of Defense to authorize training with the military
forces or other security forces of a friendly foreign country
in order to prepare the United States armed forces to train the
military forces or other security forces of a friendly foreign
country and enhance interoperability. Training with foreign
military forces under this authority must be in the U.S.
national interest and consistent with U.S. national security
strategy as well as the recent Presidential guidance on
security sector assistance.
United States counterterrorism assistance and cooperation in North
Africa (sec. 1204)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to develop a strategic framework for U.S.
counterterrorism assistance and cooperation in North Africa,
including but not limited to programs conducted under the
Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership, Operation Enduring
Freedom-Trans Sahara (OEF-TS), and other related security
assistance activities. The provision would also require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the
details of this framework, as well as on lessons-learned from
recent developments in Mali and the region.
The committee notes that the military-led coup against
Mali's democratically elected government in 2012, the ensuing
expansion of violent extremist organizations in Northern Mali,
and the collapse of the Malian military raise concerns
regarding the effectiveness of U.S. counterterrorism
cooperation and assistance programs in the Sahel region. Most
prominently, concerns were highlighted concerning the Trans-
Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP) and OEF-TS which
were intended to be of benefit to Mali. In particular, units
and individuals who had been targeted for U.S. training and
assistance figured prominently in both the collapse of Mali's
military in the North and in the coup in Bamako.
Unquestionably, these developments constitute a setback for
U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the region and they also lead
to questions about the effectiveness of U.S. assistance in
recent years, though some participating nations, most notably
Chad, have played key roles in mounting a response to events in
Mali. Unfortunately, the Mali experience is not unique. U.S.
efforts to develop regional counterterrorism partnerships are
being undertaken in a context in which coups, instability, and
concerns about human rights abuses constitute historical and
often ongoing risks.
Recent events on the ground underscore issues raised by
outside evaluators regarding TSCTP, OEF-TS, and related
programs. For example, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) in 2008 identified concerns about a lack of clearly
identified objectives, challenges in interagency coordination
at the regional level, and inadequate program evaluation. GAO
recommended that the agencies involved develop a comprehensive
strategy designed to clarify objectives, priorities, and
milestones for use in program evaluation. While the Departments
of Defense and State agreed with GAO's recommendations, 5 years
have passed without strategy articulation.
Events in Mali have underscored the importance of continued
focus on developing long-term regional counterterrorism
capabilities instead of short-term tactical operations focused
primarily on individual country conditions and outcomes. The
committee is concerned that existing efforts, when assessed
from a regional perspective, have been compromised by lack of
clarity about objectives and priorities, incoherent planning,
poor interagency coordination, and unclear metrics for
evaluating success.
Assistance to the Government of Jordan for border security operations
(sec. 1205)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense--upon a determination from the
President that it is in the national security interests of the
United States--to use up to $75.0 million of amounts authorized
for the Coalition Support Fund account in fiscal years 2013 and
2014 to support the border security operations of the Jordanian
Armed Forces.
Authority to conduct activities to enhance the capability of foreign
countries to respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction
(sec. 1206)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the
Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide assistance to the
military and civilian first responders of a foreign country to
enhance the capability of that country to respond effectively
to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
The committee notes that the U.S. strategy and policy for
reducing the risks from WMD includes the participation and
cooperation of foreign countries. The provision would permit
the Defense Department to enhance the ability of foreign
countries to respond to and reduce the consequences of WMD
incidents, thus assisting in meeting the goals of U.S. strategy
and policy to reduce the risks of WMD.
Support of foreign forces participating in operations to disarm the
Lord's Resistance Army (sec. 1207)
Pursuant to the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and
Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-172), the
committee recommends a provision that would authorize the
Department of Defense to obligate not more than $50.0 million
in each fiscal year in operation and maintenance funding to
provide logistical support, services and supplies, and
intelligence support to: (1) the national military forces of
Uganda participating in operations to mitigate or eliminate the
threat posed by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA); and (2) the
national military forces of any other countries determined by
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State, to be participating in operations to mitigate or
eliminate the threat posed by the LRA. The Secretary's
authority would expire upon the termination of Operation
Observant Compass.
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq
Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan (sec. 1211)
The committee recommends a provision that would make up to
$60.0 million available during fiscal year 2014 for the
Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) under section
1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012 (Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1619), as amended by section
1221 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013 (Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 1992). The provision would
also require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a
report on the lessons learned and best practices regarding the
implementation of the CERP in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report
would include a review of: training requirements for CERP
managers; project planning, management, sustainability, and
transfer; the project approval process; CERP oversight by the
Department of Defense and Congress; and recommendations for the
use of CERP in future contingency operations.
The committee notes that with the drawdown of U.S. forces
in Afghanistan, responsibility for reconstruction efforts
conducted by the U.S. military must continue to shift to other
U.S. Government departments and agencies and to the Government
of Afghanistan, which has a critical need to improve its
governance capacity and delivery of services to the Afghan
people. In addition, since one of the purposes of CERP is to
provide force protection for U.S. combat forces by winning the
support of local communities, the requirement for CERP should
continue to decline as U.S. combat forces withdraw from
Afghanistan. Therefore, the committee believes continuing
reductions in CERP spending are appropriate and necessary as
the December 2014 date nears for the end of combat operations
in Afghanistan.
Extension and modification of authority to support operations and
activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec.
1212)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through fiscal year 2014 the authority under section 1215 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1631; 10 U.S.C. 113 note), as
amended by section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), for the
Secretary of Defense to support transition activities in Iraq
by supporting the operations and activities of the Office of
Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I). The provision would
authorize the use of up to $209.0 million in fiscal year 2014
to support OSC-I operations and activities.
The provision would also extend for 1 year the additional
authority for the OSC-I to conduct non-operational training of
Iraqi Ministry of Defense and Counter Terrorism Service
personnel in an institutional environment to address capability
gaps and integrate certain processes within the Iraqi security
forces. The provision would add a requirement that such
training include elements to promote respect for human rights,
military professionalism, and respect for legitimate civilian
authority in Iraq.
The provision would also extend and modify the requirement
to update the report required under section 1211 of Public Law
112-239 to provide additional information and evaluations of
the activities of the OSC-I.
The committee encourages OSC-I to further reduce
unnecessary overhead and support-function staffing in order to
maximize the use of authorized funds for ensuring adequate
force protection and supporting efforts to address capability
gaps of the Iraqi security forces. The committee anticipates
that colocation of OSC-I personnel within embassy facilities
will improve interagency cooperation of this vital function.
One-year extension and modification of authority to use funds for
reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1213)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
1-year extension of the authority under section 1216 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4392), as amended, to use
Department of Defense funds to support the reintegration of
former insurgent fighters into Afghanistan society. For fiscal
year 2014, up to $25.0 million may be used to support
reintegration activities under this section.
The committee is concerned about the adequacy of procedures
under the Afghanistan Reintegration Program for ensuring
accountability of individuals who have reintegrated, due to the
potential impact on the ability to track rates of recidivism
and the integrity and viability of the reintegration program.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the
strategy and mechanisms used by the Government of Afghanistan
and the Department of Defense to ensure accountability of
reintegrees, including through such means as documenting the
pledge process, collecting the biometric data of reintegrating
individuals, and other identification procedures. The Secretary
is further directed to report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and of the House of Representatives on
the findings of this review not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
One-year extension and modification of authority for program to develop
and carry out infrastructure projects in Afghanistan (sec.
1214)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority under section 1217 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383; 124 Stat. 4393) for the Secretary of Defense to use
Department of Defense (DOD) funds to support the Afghanistan
Infrastructure Program (AIP) which carries out large-scale
infrastructure projects in support of the counterinsurgency
strategy in Afghanistan. The provision would authorize up to
$250.0 million for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund (AIF) to
support the AIP. In addition, the provision would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development, to report to the congressional
defense committees within 90 days of the enactment of this Act
on a plan for transitioning responsibility for the management
of the AIP projects that are funded with AIF amounts authorized
by this Act to the Government of Afghanistan by no later than
December 31, 2014.
The committee believes that the AIP has made important
contributions to the counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan.
By expanding the delivery of such key services as electricity,
irrigation, and roads, the AIP provides local communities a
powerful incentive to work with the Government of Afghanistan
and coalition forces. At the same time, with the drawdown of
U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the transition of responsibility
to the Afghan National Security Forces for security throughout
Afghanistan by no later than the end of 2014, DOD's role in
funding these large infrastructure projects becomes hard to
justify. The committee expects that, with the possible
exception of unanticipated project management costs, no
additional AIF amounts will be required after fiscal year 2014.
Responsible transition of program management to Afghan
authorities will maintain the viability of AIP-funded efforts
as a component of the counterinsurgency campaign of Afghan
security forces. In addition, the committee urges DOD to
undertake the necessary planning to expeditiously and
responsibly transition project management of AIP projects to
the Government of Afghanistan or the Afghan utility Da
Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat.
Extension of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations
for support provided to United States military operations (sec.
1215)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
fiscal year 2014 the authority under section 1233 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 393), as amended, for the Secretary of
Defense to use Department of Defense (DOD) funds (``Coalition
Support Funds'') to reimburse key nations for support they have
provided to or in connection with Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF), or to use such funds to provide specialized training or
loan specialized equipment to key nations participating in OEF.
The provision would limit the amount of Coalition Support Funds
that could be provided in fiscal year 2014 to $1.5 billion.
The provision would also extend for one year two
requirements related to Coalition Support Funds for Pakistan.
The first would be the requirement under section 1232(b)(6)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181), as amended, to provide as part of the 15-
day prior notification of a reimbursement to Pakistan, a
detailed description of the logistical and other support being
reimbursed.
The second would be the requirement under section 1227(d)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(Public Law 112-239) to make certain certifications regarding
Pakistan's cooperation with U.S. counterterrorism and other
efforts prior to any payment of Coalition Support Funds to
Pakistan. The provision includes a national security waiver.
Extension of logistical support for coalition forces supporting certain
United States military operations (sec. 1216)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to provide logistical support to coalition
forces under section 1234 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as most recently
amended by section 1216(a) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
Extension and improvement of the Iraqi special immigrant visa program
(sec. 1217)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend--for
1 fiscal year--and modify the Iraq Special Immigrant Visa
program.
Extension and improvement of the Afghan special immigrant visa program
(sec. 1218)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend--for
1 fiscal year--and modify the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa
program.
Sense of Congress on commencement of new long-term nation building or
large-scale infrastructure development projects in Afghanistan
(sec. 1219)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should seek
not to commence any new long-term nation-building or large-
scale infrastructure-development projects in Afghanistan after
2014.
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters
Two-year extension of authorization for non-conventional assisted
recovery capabilities (sec. 1231)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority of the Department of Defense to establish, develop,
and maintain non-conventional assisted recovery (NAR)
capabilities for 2 additional years.
The committee appreciates the Department's efforts to
improve its reporting on activities conducted under the NAR
authority, but believes additional details are necessary in the
notifications and quarterly reports submitted to Congress.
Specifically, the report should include more detailed
descriptions of the requirement for NAR capabilities in a
particular region or country, the number and types of NAR
capabilities developed under the authority, and the extent to
which established NAR capabilities are exercised to ensure they
remain reliable. The report should also, where applicable,
describe how NAR networks are augmented by other authorities
available to combatant commanders. The committee also believes
that, given the potential sensitivity of the presence of NAR
capabilities in a particular region or country, the
establishment of such capabilities should be limited to those
countries and regions where U.S. personnel are at greatest
risk.
Element on 5th generation fighter program in annual report on military
and security developments involving the People's Republic of
China (sec. 1232)
The committee recommends a provision that would add a
requirement for the Department of Defense to include
information on China's 5th generation fighter programs in the
congressionally-mandated Annual Report on Military and Security
Developments involving the People's Republic of China. Although
recent versions of the report include information about China's
5th generation fighters, this provision make this aspect of
China's military development a permanent part of the annual
report.
Prohibition on use of funds to enter into contracts or agreements with
Rosoboronexport (sec. 1233)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense from entering into a contract or
providing a loan to the Russian state corporation,
Rosoboronexport, after fiscal year 2013. The provision would
allow the Secretary of Defense to waive this prohibition if he
determines that doing so is in the U.S. national security
interest. Should the Secretary of Defense invoke the waiver,
the Secretary would be required to notify Congress of the
obligation of funds pursuant to the waiver not later than 30
days before the funds are obligated.
The provision would also require, not later than 15 days
after submitting the notification specified above, that the
Secretary provide Congress certain information on
Rosoboronexport's activities with Syria.
Modification of statutory references to former North Atlantic Treaty
Organization support organizations and related agreements (sec.
1234)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
technical amendments to title 10 and title 22, United States
Code, to replace certain statutory references to North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) organizations or agreements with
appropriate references to successor organizations or agreements
resulting from recent organizational reforms within the NATO
structure. The technical amendments would facilitate completion
of the NATO reform process by ensuring that the amended
authorities under title 10 and title 22, United States Code,
apply to the new NATO agencies.
Technical correction relating to funding for NATO Special Operations
Headquarters (sec. 1235)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
technical modifications to section 1244 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), as
amended, that authorized the Secretary of Defense to use up to
$50.0 million from Operation and Maintenance, Army, in any
fiscal year to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ). The technical
modification is consistent with an agreement between the Army
and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and the April
2013 Resource Management Decision transferring resourcing
responsibility from the Army to USSOCOM. The recommended
provision would allow for the Secretary of Defense to provide
up to $50.0 million in support to the NSHQ in any fiscal year
from any Operation and Maintenance funds available to the
Department of Defense.
Strategy to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
and related materials in the Middle East and North Africa
Region (sec. 1236)
The committee recommends a provision that directs the
President to prepare a strategy and implementation plan for
preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
related materials in the Middle East and North Africa not later
than March 31, 2014.
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region represents a
new generation of immediate and growing WMD-related
proliferation challenges. Factors lending urgency to regional
threat dynamics in this region include Syria's chemical weapons
program, Iran's nuclear program and the influence of terrorist
groups operating in the region. The Committee believes that it
is critical that the United States develop a comprehensive,
effective and efficient cooperative threat reduction (CTR) and
nonproliferation strategy to address the challenge of WMD-
related proliferation in the MENA region.
Items of Special Interest
Inter-American Defense College
The committee notes that the Inter-American Defense College
(IADC) is an international educational institution operating
under the sponsorship and funding of the Organization of
American States and the Inter-American Defense Board. IADC
serves as a senior-service, international, joint academic
institution center for security and defense studies of
military, national police, and government civilians from
nations throughout the Western Hemisphere. Since it was
established in 1962, the IADC has had over 2,500 graduates,
including general and flag officers, ministers, and heads of
state. The committee supports IADC's mission and mandate and is
pleased that the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to serve
as the host to this important international academic
institution, which in addition to providing a comprehensive
education for civilian and military officials across the
Western Hemisphere, provides officials with a better
understanding of the importance of respect for human rights,
rule of law, and civilian control of the military.
The committee is aware that the IADC Council of Delegates
has directed its leadership to seek the authority to award
advanced level degrees and the committee is also aware that DOD
submitted a legislative proposal that would fulfill one element
of a series of requirements established by the Department of
Education for IADC to meet from its Council of Delegates.
However, the committee is concerned that enacting just one
element at this time will only serve to confuse IADC's
authorities as an academic institution. As such, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the
Secretary of Education, to conduct a review of IADC to
determine what, if any, steps must be taken for the IADC to be
considered a fully accredited degree granting institution in
the United States. Should the Secretary find that legislative
action is required, the committee expects the Secretary of
Defense to submit any legislative proposals with the budget
request for fiscal year 2015.
Military-to-military cooperation with Somalia
The establishment of the National Government of Somalia in
August 2012 brings the promise of a new era for the people of
Somalia, and follows the considerable and hard-fought successes
of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and Somali
National Security Forces efforts to secure the country over the
past 2 years. Recognizing the significance of Somalia's newly
established government and improved but tenuous security
environment, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2093
suspends the 21-year-old arms embargo to allow for ``deliveries
of weapons or military equipment or the provision of advice,
assistance or training, intended solely for the development of
the National Security Forces of the Federal Government of
Somalia,'' and calls for the training, equipping, and capacity-
building of Somalia National Security Forces, including both
its armed forces and police.
The committee believes that U.S. national security
interests in the region would be well-served by Somali National
Security Forces that are capable of maintaining and expanding
security within Somalia, confronting international security
threats such as piracy and terrorism, and preventing human
rights abuses. U.S. military-to-military cooperation offers an
important opportunity to build critical capacities that are
accountable to civilian authorities and adhere to the tenets of
human rights within the Somali National Security Forces and to
build relationships in order to promote a strong future
partnership. Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of
Defense to pursue military-to-military cooperation with the
Somali National Security Forces through existing authorities as
soon as practicable.
In pursuit of that objective, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to formulate a strategy for military-to-
military cooperation, including security assistance,
professional military education, information sharing, and
training between the U.S. armed forces and the Somali National
Security Forces. The strategy should include, but not be
limited to, the following elements:
(1) identification of specific U.S. national security
objectives addressed through military-to-military
cooperation activities;
(2) identification of mechanisms for coordinating
U.S. security cooperation with other international
donors, notably the European Union Training Mission;
(3) a strategy for ensuring that military-to-military
cooperation serves to enhance integration and coherence
of the Somali National Security Services, including
improving multi-ethnic representation, strengthening
unit coherence and chain of command, and bolstering
civilian control of the Somali armed forces;
(4) an evaluation of unmet equipment and weaponry
needs of the Somali armed forces, as well as an
assessment of the ability of the Somali Armed Forces to
maintain custody and accountability of its weapons
inventory and of the benefits and risks of the
provision of weaponry to the Somali armed forces by the
United States;
(5) an assessment of the security risks to U.S.
personnel conducting security cooperation activities
within Somalia;
(6) an assessment of the ability of the Somali
National Security Forces to maintain control of any
equipment and deny violent extremists access to it;
(7) plans for integrating training to prevent human
rights abuses into military-to-military cooperation
activities;
(8) plans to assist the Somali National Security
Forces in preventing infiltration and insider attacks,
including through the application of lessons learned in
U.S. military training efforts in Afghanistan; and
(9) any other matters the Secretary deems
appropriate.
Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary shall submit the report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The report may take the form of a briefing, unclassified
report, or unclassified report with a classified annex, as the
Secretary deems appropriate.
Status of United States military engagements with Burma
The committee notes the developments in Burma over the past
year or so that indicate the commitment by the Government of
Burma toward democratization and to address human rights
abuses, including abuses by the Burmese military. As a result
of these developments, the Department of Defense has begun
modest and measured military-to-military interactions with the
Burmese military. While such military engagement activities can
be positive reinforcement for meaningful reforms, the committee
remains mindful of the history of human rights abuses within
the Burmese military, concerns regarding continuing abuses, and
the possibility that any well-intended U.S. military engagement
could be misdirected toward a negative result.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to
provide written updates to the relevant congressional
committees on the status of military-to-military engagement
between the United States armed forces and the Burmese
military. The first such update shall be provided by September
30, 2013, and the next update by March 31, 2014. These updates,
which may be in the form of a written report or in the form of
a briefing that includes a written description of activities,
shall include at a minimum: (1) a written list of ongoing
military-to-military activities with a description of each; (2)
a written update on activities that were listed in previous
reporting; (3) a written list of activities that are planned to
occur over the upcoming months with a written description of
each; and (4) the status of the Burmese military's cooperation
with civilian authorities to investigate and resolve cases of
military human rights violations.
For purposes of this requirement, the relevant
congressional committees include 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.
Taiwan air power assessment
Section 1281 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) expressed the sense of
Congress that the President should take steps to address
Taiwan's shortfall in fighters, whether through the sale of F-
16C/D fighters or the procurement of other aircraft. The
conference report accompanying Public Law 112-239 also requires
the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, to ensure that a briefing is prepared and made available
to congressional defense committees that sets forth the
administration's plan for meeting the statutory requirements of
the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8) as they relate to
how the Taiwan Air Force can contribute appropriately to
Taiwan's defense. This briefing has yet to be presented to the
Congress. Accordingly, the committee directs the Department to
brief the congressional defense committees no later than July
15, 2013.
In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a classified report assessing the capabilities and
readiness of the Taiwanese Air Force no later than December 1,
2013. The classified report shall include: a qualitative
assessment of the capabilities of each type of fixed wing
tactical aircraft in the Taiwanese inventory; an assessment of
the readiness of each type of fixed wing tactical aircraft in
the Taiwanese inventory; and the expected timeframe of
obsolescence of each category of aircraft in the Taiwanese
inventory compared to the People's Liberation Army Air Force
fixed-wing aircraft in both quantity and quality.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds (sec.
1301)
The committee recommends a provision that would define the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds
as authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill,
and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3
fiscal years.
Funding allocations (sec. 1302)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$528.5 million, the amount of the budget request, for the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. The provision
accounts for the change in the umbrella agreement with Russia
ending June 17, 2013, in which the following programs will be
terminated (as compared to being funded as proposed in the
fiscal year 2014 budget request): (1) SS-24 Missile Disassembly
and storage, $4.3 million, (2) Chemical Weapons Technical
Support--Russia, $21.3 million, (3) Nuclear Security
Enhancements--Russia, $4.0 million, and (4) Nuclear Weapons
Transportation--Russia, $49.7 million.
The resulting cancellation of funds ($79.3 million)
transfers $62.3 million to the Proliferation Prevention Program
for Middle East cooperative threat reduction activities to
prevent and detect acquisition, proliferation, and use of
Syria's chemical weapons, weapons-usable and related materials,
equipment or means of delivery, and knowledge. This activity
will continue partnerships with Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and
Lebanon. $13.0 million is transferred to Chemical Weapons
Eliminations--Libya/Middle East to prepare for potential
requirements in Syria if the U.S. Government has a Syrian
partner with whom to work to potentially secure and destroy
Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. $4.0 million is transferred
to the Threat Reduction Engagement Program for exercises and
bilateral workshops with Russia that does not require the
expiring CTR umbrella agreement to carry out.
This provision authorizes specific amounts for each CTR
program element, requires notification to Congress 30 days
before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal
year 2014 funds for a purpose other than a purpose listed in
the provision, and requires notification to Congress 15 days
before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal
year 2014 funds in excess of the specific amount authorized for
each CTR program element.
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
Subtitle A--Military Programs
Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds at the
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund at the
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1403)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for chemical agents and munitions destruction,
defense, at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D
of this Act.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1404)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for drug interdiction and counterdrug
activities, defense-wide, at the levels identified in section
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1405)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 4501
of division D of this Act.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1406)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels
identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec.
1421)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$67.8 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2014 from the
Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of
the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
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
(sec. 1422)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to transfer $143.1 million 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) for
the operations of the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health
Care Center.
Budget Items
Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan
The budget request for the Department of Defense Office of
the Inspector General (DOD IG) included $311.1 million in
Operation and Maintenance (O&M).
The committee recognizes that the independent audit and
investigative functions of the DOD IG continues to play a
valuable role in identifying waste, fraud, and abuse in
Department of Defense programs and operations. In fiscal year
2012, DOD IG audits and investigations resulted in a $3.6
billion return on investment, which is an increase of $1.0
billion in returns compared to fiscal year 2011. A $3.6 billion
return on investment equates to a return of $2.3 million per
employee and $10.81 for every dollar appropriated. The 147
reports issued in fiscal year 2012 led to 149 arrests, 247
convictions, 126 suspensions, and 207 debarments.
The committee continues to believe that the DOD IG should
focus on conducting oversight related to military operations in
Afghanistan, review contract management and acquisitions, and
support audits to identify potential waste, fraud, and abuse.
The committee also believes that contractor oversight by the
DOD IG should include detailed accounting of the number of
personnel used and the capabilities provided by contractors.
The committee notes that in the language of Senate Report 112-
173, to accompany S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. 112-239) the committee directed
the DOD IG to reevaluate the 2008 growth plan and establish
future staffing objectives on the basis of audit and
investigation need and current budgetary realities. The
committee received an updated growth plan on May 15, 2013,
which calls for a fiscal year 2018 end state of 1,900 versus
2,061 full-time equivalents (FTE), 161 less than originally
planned; a 7.8 percent downward adjustment. The committee notes
this end state still represents an increase of 286 FTEs over
the fiscal year 2013 authorized FTE level of 1,614, and will
allow for substantive increases in the DOD IG's oversight
capabilities. The committee also notes that the DOD IG budget
request for fiscal year 2014 still falls $35.9 million short of
their requirements for increased oversight capabilities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $35.9
million in O&M for the DOD IG.
Defense Health Program funding
The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Defense
Health Program includes the following change from the budget
request. This addition would replace savings assumed by the
Department of Defense (DOD) for proposed establishment of
enrollment fees and increases to certain other TRICARE fees,
which the committee did not adopt.
[Changes in millions of dollars]
Restore DOD assumed savings for TRICARE proposals................. 218.0
Total......................................................... 218.0
Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities
The budget request included $816.0 million to support the
Department of Defense's (DOD) Drug Interdiction and Counter
Drug Activities. Of those amounts, $19.9 million supported the
Joint Interagency Task Force-West (JIATF-W, project code 3309);
$1.6 million supported the United States European Command's
(EUCOM) headquarters (project code 2346); and $1.2 million for
special operations forces counternarcotics (CN) support to
EUCOM (project code 6505).
The committee recommends a decrease of $5.8 million to
DOD's Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities, which will
decrease by $3.0 million funding for the JIATF-W, and provide
no funding for the two aforementioned programs at EUCOM.
The committee understands the importance of interagency
cooperation, particularly as it relates to CN and efforts to
combat the related threats posed by transnational organized
criminal organizations. However, the committee is concerned the
JIATF-W and its associated activities are not fully integrated
into the intelligence, and policy and planning directorates of
United States Pacific Command (PACOM). As result, the committee
believes that there is duplication in these two important
areas. The committee urges the Commander of PACOM to review
JIATF-W's activities and eliminate unnecessary duplication of
effort within the PACOM's CN, intelligence, and capacity-
building activities.
On the reductions to EUCOM, the committee has noted since
2012 its concern with DOD's efforts to maintain CN programs at
EUCOM. The committee believes partner nations within the EUCOM
area of responsibility are best positioned to fund both
intelligence activities and capacity building on their own. As
such, the committee is eliminating funding for EUCOM's CN
programs and urges the Secretary to approve no funding for
these programs in the next fiscal year.
Items of Special Interest
Army industrial operations activity group
The committee notes that recent analysis on the Army
industrial operations activity group conducted by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) showed that the Army
needs to improve the budgeting and management of carryover. The
committee remains concerned that the Army underestimated
industrial operations new orders every year during a 7-year
period of review by the GAO, from a low of 11 percent to a high
of 70 percent. For orders funded with procurement
appropriations, the Army underestimated new orders by 118
percent for the 7-year period. The committee is also concerned
that the carryover grew to $5.8 billion in fiscal year 2011.
The three primary causes for the carryover were: (1) the scope
of work was not well defined, (2) parts needed to perform the
work were not available, and (3) some orders were received late
in the fiscal year which provided little time to resolve any
scope of work or parts issues. The committee notes that the
arrival of direct appropriation funding late in a fiscal year
only exacerbates the ability to effectively manage carryover.
The committee has learned that the Army has recently formed
a working group to resolve these budgeting and management
issues. Accordingly, the committee encourages the Army to
promptly finalize the working group results and implement the
actions identified to improve the budgeting and management of
carryover. The committee directs the Army to prepare a briefing
or a report to the committee on their progress no later than
September 15, 2013.
Concerns with working capital fund cash balances and fuel rate pricing
The committee remains concerned that the Department of
Defense (DOD) continues to struggle with the management of cash
balances and carryover in working capital funds (WCF),
resulting in increased risk and unnecessary negative impacts to
Operation and Maintenance funding due to inadequate fuel rate
determinations. For several years now the Government
Accountability Office has documented the DOD's significant cash
fluctuation in multiple reports. The committee notes that the
effect of sequestration as a result of the Budget Control Act
of 2011, the recent string of late-arriving annual
appropriations, and the volatile global price of fossil fuels
only exacerbate the issue.
The committee remains concerned that while the function of
the WCF is designed to protect customer programs in the year of
execution, the reality of the last several years is that
frequently changing WCF rates and reprogramming requests have
evolved from exceptions to common practice. For example, in
2009 the standard composite fuel price charged to DOD customers
changed five times, and at least once per year since 2005.
Additionally, in fiscal year 2012 the committee received a
reprogramming request for $1.0 billion to offset a change in
fuel rates. A similar reprogramming request occurred in fiscal
year 2013 for $1.4 billion. The committee notes that the DOD
bases its fuel rate charged to the services from the Office of
Management and Budget's set price for a refined barrel of fuel
based on an estimated future market price projection.
Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the 7-10 day
window has not been effective in enabling the services to adapt
and absorb WCF rate changes in fuel and transportation costs in
the budget year of execution, resulting in negative impacts to
readiness, specifically in the Operation and Maintenance
accounts.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
to report to the congressional defense committees no later than
March 1, 2014 with recommendations as to how the DOD can better
determine and manage their WCF and fuel rates in the budget
year of execution.
Joint Interagency Task Force--South
Sequestration and budget restrictions are having a negative
impact not only on readiness and modernization accounts, but
also on the ability of the Department of Defense (DOD) to carry
out ongoing missions. While DOD's decision to allocate scarce
budgetary resources to forces engaged with the enemy in
Afghanistan is both understandable and justifiable, that
decision has had a significant impact on the operations of
other combatant commands.
For example, budgetary restrictions have drastically
reduced the ability of DOD and partner agencies to allocate
assets--particularly surface vessels and personnel to the Joint
Interagency Task Force South (JIATF--South) mission of
countering illicit drug trafficking and disruption of
transnational criminal organizations in the United States
Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) area of responsibility, thereby
increasing the supply of narcotics hitting U.S. streets at the
same time that state and local law enforcement are also seeing
funding reductions. During his March 2013 testimony before the
Senate Committee on Armed Services, General John F. Kelly,
Commander of SOUTHCOM, warned that sequestration could hinder
the ability of SOUTHCOM to detect and monitor the flow of drugs
to the United States, support the counterdrug efforts of
partner nations, and curtail counternarcotics air and surface
operations. He said, ``[t]aken together, these limitations
would undermine the significant gains we have made through the
highly successful and ongoing Operation Martillo; the 152
metric tons of cocaine seized to date represents over $3.0
billion in revenue that will not go to fund powerful criminal
groups, violence in Mexico, and the destabilization of our
Central American partners. These 152 metric tons will also not
reach the streets of America nor fuel costly crime and drug
addiction.''
The committee believes that the across-the-board
sequestration cuts to the DOD budget are arbitrary and
irrational and undermine the national security of the United
States. In the absence of legislation removing the threat of
continued sequestration, the committee encourages the Secretary
of Defense to do as much as practicable to continue key
operations of the geographic combatant commands, such as the
counternarcotics mission of SOUTHCOM and JIATF--South.
National Guard Counterdrug Program
The committee notes that the Department of Defense requests
funding annually to support the National Guard Counterdrug
Program (CDP). The committee believes that the CDP plays an
important role in providing military-specific capabilities and
expertise resident within the National Guard to support the
counterdrug activities of federal, state, and local
authorities. This support includes the provision of linguists,
intelligence, transportation, logistics, reconnaissance,
training, education, and prevention outreach. The committee
believes this support has proven effective in helping to meet
national counterdrug objectives. The committee notes that over
the last 2 fiscal years, budgetary pressures have led the
Department to decrease the budget request for the CDP. The
committee understands that these cuts have caused a disruption
or curtailment of CDP operations, including the activities of
the five regional Counterdrug Training Centers. As such, the
committee encourages the Department to continue its support for
the CDP and provide adequate funding to ensure the
sustainability of the program.
Additionally, the committee notes that beginning in 2008,
the National Guard Bureau began development of a threat-based
approach to its counterdrug activities. The committee supported
this initiative and, in fiscal year 2011, DOD approved the
Threat-Based Resource Model (TBRM) and began implementation of
the new construct in fiscal year 2012, with plans to achieve
full implementation by fiscal year 2015. The basis of the TBRM
construct is to align funding in support of state counterdrug
plans based on an analytical assessment of security threats
associated with narcotics trafficking.
In prepared testimony submitted to Congress in 2012, the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau stated: ``the implementation
of the [TBRM] budget will strengthen the National Guard's
national security capability by allocating resources to all
states and territories based on the severity of the narcotics
threat faced by each state.'' As implementation of the TBRM
continues, the committee urges the National Guard Bureau to
ensure that the data, metrics, and analyses associated with the
TBRM are reliable, clearly articulated, transparent, and
reflect the changing nature of narcotics trafficking
activities. In addition, the committee urges the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau to cooperate and share information
associated with the TBRM in a routine, systemic manner with
relevant interagency partners, particularly the Office of
National Drug Control Policy and the Drug Enforcement Agency.
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations
Purpose (sec. 1501)
The committee recommends a provision that 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.
Procurement (sec. 1502)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for procurement at the levels
identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act.
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1503)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for research, development, test, and
evaluation at the levels identified in section 4202 of division
D of this Act.
Operation and maintenance (sec. 1504)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for operation and maintenance at the
levels identified in section 4302 of division D of this Act.
Military personnel (sec. 1505)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for military personnel at the levels
identified in section 4402 of division D of this Act.
Working capital funds (sec. 1506)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for Defense Working Capital Funds at
the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this
Act.
National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1507)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund
at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this
Act.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1508)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for chemical agents and munitions
destruction, defense, at the levels identified in section 4502
of division D of this Act.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1509)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for drug interdiction and counter-
drug activities, defense-wide, at the level identified in
section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1510)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector
General of the Department of Defense at the levels identified
in section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Defense Health program (sec. 1511)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the
levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Financial Matters
Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)
The committee recommends a provision that would state that
amounts authorized to be appropriated by this title are in
addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by
this Act.
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the transfer of up to an additional $4.0 billion of war-related
funding authorizations in this title among the accounts in this
title.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1531)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
until December 31, 2014, the authority for the Secretary of
Defense to use funds to investigate, develop, and provide
equipment, supplies, services, personnel, and funds to assist
efforts to defeat improvised explosive devices (IED).
The committee continues to maintain that the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) is a
temporary organization created by the Department of Defense
(DOD), with the support of Congress, to respond rapidly to IED
threats against our deployed forces. The committee believes it
is now the appropriate time for DOD to assess the roles and
missions of JIEDDO and DOD in maintaining a capability to
counter the IED threat. The committee believes the military
departments can absorb into their operations and doctrine the
appropriate capabilities and training required to counter the
threat posed by IED in current and future operations. JIEDDO,
in its various iterations, has now been in existence for nearly
a decade, and the military departments have had ample time to
plan accordingly. As such, the committee has extended this
authority until the end of calendar year 2014--when operations
in Afghanistan will reach an inflection point. The committee
expects the Secretary of Defense to develop a clear strategy to
ensure the military departments absorb the enduring
capabilities and associated funding that JIEDDO has benefitted
from over the past decade. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act,
on the disposition of JIEDDO as an organization and a strategy
that identifies and transitions those enduring capabilities and
associated funding to the military departments. Further, the
report will also address what mechanisms will be put in place
to ensure adequate coordination across the military departments
and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in their
science and technology activities related to defeating IEDs in
order to focus on priority areas and avoid unnecessary
duplication of effort.
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1532)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that funds available for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
for fiscal year 2014 be used subject to the conditions
specified in subsections (b) through (g) of section 1513 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 428), as amended by section 1531(b) of
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4424). The provision
would also allow for equipment previously transferred to the
Afghanistan security forces to be returned to the stocks of the
Department of Defense (DOD) with congressional notification.
The Secretary of Defense would be required to report to the
congressional defense committees semi-annually on the equipment
transferred to DOD stocks under this authority.
Extension of authority for Task Force for Business and Stability
Operations in Afghanistan (sec. 1533)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority of the Department of Defense Task Force for Business
and Stability Operations (TFBSO) in Afghanistan to promote
strategic business and economic development in support of the
civil-military campaign in Afghanistan. For fiscal year 2014,
up to $63.8 million would be authorized to fund TFBSO projects,
which include mining sector development, industrial
development, and facilitating private investment. The provision
would restrict the availability of the fiscal year 2014 funds
for developing the mining and oil and gas sectors until after
the Secretary of Defense certifies that the Government of
Afghanistan has agreed to reimburse the Government of the
United States for the amount of any such funds, from royalties
received from mining or oil and gas contracts awarded by the
Government of Afghanistan. The amendment would also revise the
period for providing an update on the implementation of the
TFBSO Transition Action Plan that was submitted to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in May 2012 from every 90 days to every 180
days.
The TFBSO has contributed to the stability of Afghanistan's
economy, particularly the development of its mining sector.
However, the committee strongly believes that TFBSO funds for
the development of Afghanistan's mining should not go towards
subsidizing the ability of foreign companies, in particular the
Chinese mineral extraction industry, to exploit the estimated
$1.0 trillion worth of Afghanistan resources. The committee
believes that companies who mine Afghanistan's rare earth
minerals should be the ones investing in the mining
infrastructure of Afghanistan.
Further, the committee expects that with the transition of
full security responsibility to the Government of Afghanistan
by the end of 2014, the activities of the TFBSO will
transition, either to another U.S. Government department or
agency or to the Government of Afghanistan, or be promptly
concluded.
Budget Items
NATO Special Operations Headquarters
The budget request for overseas contingency operations
included $7.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army, for
support to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ). As requested by the
Department of Defense and consistent with the agreement between
the Army and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and the
April 2013 Resource Management Decision transferring resourcing
responsibility from the Army to USSOCOM, the committee
recommends a transfer of this funding to Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide.
BuckEye
The budget request included $29.2 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA) for Overseas Contingency Operations, of
which $1.3 billion was for forces readiness operations support.
The committee understands that the Army's funding request
for the BuckEye system that provides high-resolution 3-
dimensional terrain data (10 centimeter electro-optical color
imagery, combined with 1-meter post spacing elevation data) was
eliminated during budget reviews due to a misunderstanding
about the enduring requirement for this data or about the
availability of alternative sources of such data. The
Department of Defense has assured the committee that U.S.
Central Command's Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statement for
five systems remains in effect through fiscal year 2014, and
that no other available system can provide this data.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $56.3
million in OMA (subactivity 121) for BuckEye terrain data.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization
The budget request included $1.0 billion for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, of which funding is
distributed to four lines of operation (LOO): (1) $417.0
million for Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization's (JIEDDO) operations attacking the network; (2)
$248.9 million for JIEDDO's operations to develop and procure
capabilities to defeat improvised explosive devices (IED); (3)
$106.0 million to fund efforts to train service members prior
to deployment on counter-IED tactics, techniques, and
procedures; and (4) $227.4 million for JIEDDO's staff and
infrastructure expenses.
The committee recommends the following modification's to
JIEDDO's budget: (1) a decrease of $106.0 million for JIEDDO's
training activities; (2) a decrease $45.0 million for JIEDDO's
staff and infrastructure expenses; (3) an increase of $80.0
million in Operation and Maintenance, Army within the Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) account to train soldiers prior to
deployment on counter-IED tactics, techniques, and procedures
(TTPs); and (4) an increase of $26.0 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps within the OCO account to train
marines prior to deployment on counter-IED TTPs.
It is the committee's view that JIEDDO's train-the-force
activities should be terminated. These activities are the
responsibilities of the military departments and JIEDDO should
no longer support them. As such, the committee's recommendation
would eliminate funding for JIEDDO's train-the-force operations
and redistribute the funding to Army and Marine Corps operation
and maintenance accounts for counter-IED training activities.
The committee's second reduction to JIEDDO's budget would
require the Director of JIEDDO to reduce the size of its
overhead. As such, the committee recommendation would make a 20
percent reduction to JIEDDO's staff and infrastructure LOO.
Many of JIEDDO's headquarters activities duplicate identical or
similar processes that already exist within the various
military departments or the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
As such, the committee directs the Director of JIEDDO to
identify elements of those organizations to assume these tasks.
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund
The budget request included $62.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance (OM), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), of
which $279.0 million was for the Afghanistan Infrastructure
Fund (AIF) in fiscal year 2014 to support a program to develop
and construct large-scale infrastructure projects that support
the counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. The committee's
concerns about the need to transition responsibility for large-
scale infrastructure project management from the Department of
Defense to the Government of Afghanistan or an Afghan
Government-owned utility company are discussed in another title
of this Act. In this regard, the committee understands that the
Afghan power utility company, Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat
(DABS), has begun planning to assume responsibility for the
operation of the diesel generators supplying electricity to the
Kandahar City area. The committee expects DABS to assume a
portion of the costs of operating the Kandahar diesel
generators in fiscal year 2014 and to assume the full costs
associated with the operation of the generators in fiscal years
2015 and beyond.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $29.0
million for OM, OCO, for AIF, to a level of $250.0 million.
Item of Special Interest
Counter improvised explosive device training
The Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 2000.19E
establishing the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization (JIEDDO) requires the Director of JIEDDO to
``[d]evelop and manage, within the military service combat
training centers, a distributed Joint Center of Excellence
(CoE) for the development of new operational techniques and
tactical procedures, and provide a venue for training,
experimentation, and testing of new equipment and concepts.''
As the committee awaits the reports required pursuant to
section 1535 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), the committee directs
the Secretary to undertake as part of that assessment a review
of DOD Directive 2000.19E to ensure that the synchronizing
function across the military departments and defense agencies
is preserved so that lessons-learned from the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan are not lost and that the investments made by DOD
over the past decade, where appropriate, are preserved and
maintained.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
Summary and explanation of funding tables
Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military
construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It
includes funding authorizations for the construction and
operation of military family housing as well as military
construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies,
and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure
accounts that fund military construction, environmental
cleanup, and other activities required to implement the
decisions in base closure rounds.
The tables contained in this Act provide the project-level
authorizations for the military construction funding authorized
in Division B of this Act and summarize that funding by
account. Funding for base closure projects is summarized in
title XXVII of this report and is explained in additional
detail in the table included in title XLVI of this report.
The fiscal year 2014 budget requested $11.01 billion for
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount,
$8.65 billion was requested for military construction, $1.54
billion for the construction and operation of family housing,
and $451.4 million for base closure activities.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations
for military construction, housing programs, and base closure
activities totaling $9.67 billion. The total amount authorized
for appropriations reflects the committee's continuing
commitment to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities
and infrastructure.
Short title (sec. 2001)
The committee recommends a provision that would designate
division B of this Act as the ``Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014''.
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by
law (sec. 2002)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military
construction projects, land acquisition, family housing
projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization infrastructure program as of October 1, 2016, or
the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.
TITLE XXI-- ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.1 billion for military construction and $556.9 million
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2014.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.1 billion for military construction and $540.3 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2014.
The committee understands the Department of Defense is
currently conducting a European Infrastructure Consolidation
Review designed to identify opportunities to close facilities
and consolidate forces in locations better matched to mission
requirements. The budget requests $16.6 million for
construction of 29 new family housing units at Camp Vilseck,
Germany. The committee believes authorization of this project
would presume the outcome of the Department's European
Infrastructure Consolidation Review and, therefore, recommends
no funding for this project.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the active component of the
Army for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on
an installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Army for fiscal year 2014. This provision would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and
storage facilities.
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Army authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2014 in this Act. This provision
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized
for military construction and family housing projects for the
active-duty component of the Army. The state list contained in
this report is the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2011 project
(sec. 2104)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B
of Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4437) for construction of a
Regional Logistic Support Complex at Fort Lewis, Washington.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project
(sec. 2105)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2101(b) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (division B
of Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2629) for construction of APS
Warehouses at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2004 project
(sec. 2106)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B
of Public Law 108-136; 117 Stat. 1697) for construction of an
Explosives Research and Development Loading Facility at
Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 projects (sec.
2107)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2011 authorization for four projects until October
1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever
is later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 projects (sec.
2108)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2010 authorization for three projects until October
1, 2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever
is later.
Limitation on construction of cadet barracks at United States Military
Academy, New York (sec. 2109)
The budget request includes $42.0 million to fund the
second increment of the cadet barracks at the U.S. Military
Academy (USMA), New York. The committee remains concerned about
the condition of the existing barracks at the USMA and believes
that renovation of those barracks should be a high priority for
the Secretary of the Army.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would
prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds for the second
increment of USMA barracks construction, as requested, until
the Secretary of the Army certifies to the congressional
defense committees that the Secretary has entered into a
contract for the renovation of MacArthur Short Barracks at the
USMA, consistent with the plan provided to the congressional
defense committees in March 2013.
Items of Special Interest
Access Control Point Equipment Program
The committee notes that the Army has requested $30.3
million for its Access Control Point Equipment Program (ACPEP)
which would be installed at five Army installations. The
committee further notes that Recommendation 3.9 of the Fort
Hood commission report states that the Department of Defense
(DOD) needs to improve its ability to screen contractors coming
onto military installations. Specifically, the report
recommended that DOD ``accelerate efforts to automate access
control that will authenticate various identification media
against authoritative databases'' and ``obtain sufficient
access to appropriate threat databases and disseminate
information to local commanders to enable screening at
continental United States and overseas installation access
control points.''
The committee notes that the Navy has used U.S. General
Services Administration (GSA) and DOD approved solutions to
implement its access control requirements to military
installations that provide electronic verification for enhanced
security for contractors requiring access to military
installations by sharing the cost of implementation with the
contractors. The committee notes that the Army may save
resources by adopting existing GSA-approved solutions for base
access control.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to review existing GSA-approved access control programs in
use at DOD installations and report to the committee with a
cost-benefit analysis of using current installation force
protection practices versus further deployment of the ACPEP.
Comptroller General review of litigation costs incurred by the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative
The committee notes that over the past 12 years, the
Department of the Army has entered into a series of
transactions with various partners to construct, renovate,
maintain, and operate most of the Army's military family
housing unit inventory in the United States.
While this military family housing privatization initiative
(MHPI) has resulted in successful partnerships between the Army
and the private sector to significantly improve the quality of
housing offered to military members and their families over a
relatively short period of time, the long-term success of this
program depends on maintaining the quality of those homes in
order to continue to attract and retain military occupants. The
Army and their partners jointly manage a series of operations
and investment accounts to fund maintenance, repairs, and the
recapitalization of housing units for this purpose.
Section 2803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) was intended to
strengthen the oversight of MHPI by implementing a series of
financial integrity and accountability measures. The provision
also required the Secretary of Defense to submit expanded
reports to Congress on expenditures and receipts related to
MHPI.
It is the committee's expectation that funds generated from
the original transactions are being appropriately reinvested in
activities that directly benefit military members and their
families living in the privatized housing. The committee notes
that the provision described above was also written to provide
a greater degree of transparency on those withdrawals and
expenditures that do not have a direct benefit to military
families. The committee believes that the use of funds to pay
for internal litigation costs associated with lawsuits between
private entities involved with MHPI should be among those
withdrawals and expenditures reported to Congress.
In addition, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States, not later than October 30, 2013, to carry
out a complete review of the costs incurred to the various Army
MHPI accounts as a result of unique litigation activities. The
review should include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) a description of actions taken by the Department
of the Army to minimize the use of MHPI funds for
unique litigation;
(2) a description of documentation provided to the
Army by its partners to justify legal expenses;
(3) a review of the internal Army and partner
processes used to approve major withdrawals and
expenses for litigation;
(4) an assessment of the applicable Army guidance or
transactional documentation governing potential
withdrawals or expenditures for litigation expenses;
(5) an assessment of the impact of litigation
expenses associated with specific projects on the
availability of funding for purposes directly
beneficial to such projects;
(6) an estimate of the total costs to Army MHPI
projects that have been incurred to date and the extent
to which the Army has estimated any future litigation
expenses;
(7) a review of plans to replenish MHPI asset
management accounts impacted by withdrawals and
expenses for litigation; and
(8) any other subject matter that the Comptroller
General may deem appropriate on this subject.
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.7 billion for military construction and $463.2 million
for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal
year 2014.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.61 billion for military construction and $463.2 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2014.
The budget requested $85.7 million for an Aircraft
Maintenance Hangar at the North Ramp of Andersen Air Force
Base, Guam. Because of continuing concerns with the realignment
of United States Marines from Okinawa to Guam, addressed later
in a recommended provision in this title, the committee
recommends no funding for this project.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal
year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2202)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Navy for fiscal year 2014. This provision would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and
storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for fiscal year 2014 to improve existing Navy family
housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Department of the Navy
authorized for construction for fiscal year 2014 in this Act.
This provision would also provide an overall limit on the
amount authorized for military construction and family housing
projects for the active-duty components of the Navy and the
Marine Corps. The state list contained in this report is the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2012 project
(sec. 2205)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
of Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1666) for construction of
Explosives Handling Wharf No. 2 at Kitsap, Washington.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2011 project
(sec. 2206)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2201(b) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B
of Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4441), for construction of
Navy Central Command ammunition magazines in Bahrain.
One-year extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011
project (sec. 2207)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1,
2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is
later.
Two-year extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011
project (sec. 2208)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project 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.
Item of Special Interest
Townsend Bombing Range land acquisition
The committee notes that the budget request includes $61.7
million to acquire real estate interests as the first phase of
an expansion of the Townsend Bombing Range in Georgia in order
to support the training of Navy and Marine Corps aviators in
air-to-ground employment of precision guided munitions.
Considering the fact that the first phase of the expansion will
require the purchase of approximately 20,000 acres, the
committee commends the Department of the Navy for its efforts
to engage community representatives from Long County, Georgia
and McIntosh County, Georgia and supports efforts for a
mutually acceptable agreement regarding use of the real
property to be acquired for the expansion of the Townsend
Bombing Range that protects and supports the mission of the
range.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.2 billion for military construction and $464.9 million
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2014.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$964.2 million for military construction and $464.9 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2014.
The budget requested $132.6 million for a hardened tanker
aircraft maintenance hangar and $20.0 million for the
construction of hardened structures around existing and new
fuel systems buildings at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The
committee believes that the authorization of these projects
would presume the outcome of U.S. Pacific Command's completion
of a comprehensive operational resiliency study and, therefore,
recommends no funding for these projects.
The committee understands the Department of Defense is
currently conducting a European Infrastructure Consolidation
Review designed to identify opportunities to close facilities
and consolidate forces in locations better matched to mission
requirements. The budget requested $22.0 million for Guardian
Angel Operations Facilities at Royal Air Force Station
Lakenheath, United Kingdom, and $12.0 million for a Main Gate
Complex at Royal Air Force Station Croughton, United Kingdom.
The committee believes that the authorization of these projects
would presume the outcome of the Department's European
Infrastructure Consolidation Review and, therefore, recommends
no funding for these projects.
The budget requested $192.7 million for KC-46A Main
Operating Base (MOB) #1 facilities and $63.0 million for KC-46A
Formal Training Unit (FTU) facilities at unspecified locations.
On May 22, 2013, the Air Force announced McConnell Air Force
Base, Kansas, as its preferred alternative for the KC-46A MOB
#1 and Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, as its preferred
alternative for the KC-46A FTU. Concurrent with this
announcement, the Air Force also requested an amendment to its
budget request specifying location-specific requirements for
KC-46A bed down, including $219.1 million for eight military
construction projects at McConnell Air Force Base and $30.9
million for five military construction projects at Altus Air
Force Base. The committee recommends these amounts.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.
2301)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2014.
The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2302)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction and planning and design of family housing
units for the Air Force for fiscal year 2014. This provision
would also authorize funds for facilities that support family
housing, including housing management offices, housing
maintenance, and storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for fiscal year 2014 to improve existing Air Force
family housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2014 in this Act. This provision
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized
for military construction and family housing projects for the
active-duty component of the Air Force. The state list
contained in this report is the binding list of the specific
projects authorized at each location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec.
2305)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1,
2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is
later.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $4.0 billion for military construction for the defense
agencies, $150.0 million for energy conservation projects,
$122.5 million for chemical demilitarization construction, and
$55.8 million for family housing for the defense agencies for
fiscal year 2014.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$2.9 billion for military construction, $150.0 million for
energy conservation projects, $122.5 million for chemical
demilitarization construction, and $55.8 million for family
housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2014.
The committee understands the Department of Defense (DOD)
is currently conducting a European Infrastructure Consolidation
Review designed to identify opportunities to close facilities
and consolidate forces in locations better matched to mission
requirements. The budget requested $17.7 million to replace
fuel storage systems, $11.6 million for a squadron operations
facility, $24.4 million for a hangar, $24.0 million for
airfield improvements, and $6.8 million for storage facilities
at Royal Air Force Station Mildenhall, United Kingdom. The
budget also requested: $49.9 million for an elementary school
at Kaiserslautern Military Community, Germany; $98.8 million
for a high school at Ramstein Air Base, Germany; $58.9 million
for an elementary school and $50.7 million for a middle school
at Wiesbaden, Germany; and $69.6 million for a high school at
Royal Air Force Station Lakenheath. The committee believes that
the authorization of these projects would presume the outcome
of the Department's European Infrastructure Consolidation
Review and, therefore, recommends no funding for these
projects.
The budget requested $431.0 million for the third increment
of the High Performance Computing Center at Fort Meade,
Maryland. The committee understands DOD would be unable to
obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and,
therefore, recommends a $50.0 million reduction.
The budget requested $265.0 million for an Ambulatory
Health Center at Fort Knox, Kentucky. The committee understands
DOD would be unable to obligate and expend the full amount of
the budget request and, therefore, recommends a $190.0 million
reduction.
The budget requested $210.0 million for replacement of the
Public Health Command Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Maryland. The committee understands DOD would be unable to
obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and,
therefore, recommends a $135.0 million reduction.
The budget requested $76.2 million for the second increment
of the Ambulatory Care Center at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.
The committee understands DOD would be unable to obligate and
expend the full amount of the budget request and, therefore,
recommends a $38.1 million reduction.
The budget requested $251.2 million for the fifth increment
of the Hospital Replacement at Fort Bliss, Texas. The committee
understands DOD would be unable to obligate and expend the full
amount of the budget request and, therefore, recommends a
$152.1 million reduction.
The budget requested $151.5 million for the third increment
of the Medical Center Replacement at Rhine Ordnance Barracks,
Germany. The committee understands DOD would be unable to
obligate and expend the full amount of the budget request and,
therefore, recommends a $75.0 million reduction.
The budget requested $1.8 million for a Tour Bus Drop Off
at the Pentagon Reservation, Virginia. The committee believes
this project is unjustified given the current fiscal pressures
facing DOD and does little to improve the safety of visitors to
the Pentagon and, therefore, recommends no funding for this
project.
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the defense agencies for
fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation
projects.
Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the military construction and family housing
projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction
for fiscal year 2014 in this Act. This provision would also
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the defense
agencies. The state list contained in this report is the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations
Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization
construction, Defense-wide (sec. 2411)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the chemical
demilitarization program for fiscal year 2014. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $239.7 million for military construction in
fiscal year 2014 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
facilities.
The committee recommends a total of $239.7 million for
military construction for the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization facilities.
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)
The committee recommends a provision that 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 title and the amount of recoupment due
to the United States for construction previously financed by
the United States.
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations of $239.7 million for the U.S. contribution to
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program for fiscal year 2014.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $693.3 million for military construction in
fiscal year 2014 for facilities for the guard and reserve
components. The committee recommends this amount. The detailed
funding recommendations are contained in the state list table
included in this report.
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2601)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army National Guard for
fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a
location-by-location basis.
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2602)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal
year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-
location basis.
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2603)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine
Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are
listed on a location-by-location basis.
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2604)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Air National Guard for
fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a
location-by-location basis.
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2605)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for
fiscal year 2014. The authorized amounts are listed on a
location-by-location basis.
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the reserve component military construction
projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2014 in
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on
the amount authorized for military construction projects for
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The
state list contained in this report is the binding list of the
specific projects authorized at each location.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project
(sec. 2611)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2603 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B
of Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 2135), for construction of a
Joint Reserve Center at Fort Des Moines, Iowa.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec.
2612)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1,
2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is
later.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2011 project (sec.
2613)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2011 authorization for one project until October 1,
2014, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is
later.
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
Summary and explanation of tables
The budget request included $451.4 million for the ongoing
cost of environmental remediation and other activities
necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993,
1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. The
committee recommends this amount. The detailed funding
recommendations are contained in the state list table included
in this report.
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure
activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure
Account (sec. 2701)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for ongoing activities that
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991,
1993, 1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds.
Precondition for any future base realignment and closure round (sec.
2702)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish,
as a precondition for the authorization of a future Base
Realignment and Closure round, a requirement for the Department
of Defense to submit to Congress a formal review of overseas
military facility structure.
Report on 2005 base closure and realignment joint basing initiative
(sec. 2703)
The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round created
12 joint bases from 26 service installations that were in close
proximity or shared a boundary. While the Department of Defense
(DOD) originally planned to save $2.3 billion over 20 years
through these consolidations, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has found that the 20-year savings estimate has
fallen by nearly 90 percent to approximately $249.0 million.
GAO has further noted that: ``it is unclear whether DOD has
achieved any significant cost savings to date, in part due to
its adoption of more costly common support standards, higher
projected administrative costs, and weaknesses in its approach
to tracking costs and estimated savings.'' However, GAO has
suggested that DOD may still be able to achieve significant
savings through the adoption of ``a more rigorous and
comprehensive department-wide approach to managing this
initiative.''
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees, not later than 180 days after enactment of this
Act, on the 2005 BRAC joint basing initiative. At a minimum,
the report should include: (1) an analysis and explanation of
the costs necessary to implement the joint basing initiative;
(2) an analysis and explanation of any savings achieved to date
and planned in future years, including quantifiable goals and a
timeline for meeting such goals; (3) a description of
implementation challenges and other lessons learned; (4) an
assessment of any additional savings that could be achieved
through more rigorous management and streamlined administration
of joint bases; and (5) any other matters the Under Secretary
considers appropriate.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Modification of authorities to fund military construction through
payments-in-kind and to use residual value payments-in-kind
(sec. 2801)
The committee released a report on April 15, 2013, titled
``Inquiry into U.S. Costs and Allied Contributions to Support
the U.S. Military Presence Overseas.'' Among other things, the
committee's inquiry found that in-kind payments from partner
nations to support the overseas presence of U.S. military
forces in Germany, South Korea, and Japan, have been used to
fund questionable military construction projects. Given the
current fiscal challenges facing the Department of Defense
(DOD), it is critical that in-kind payments be utilized for
identified U.S. priorities to offset costs that DOD would
otherwise pay with appropriated funds.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would
require that all future military construction projects funded
using in-kind payments pursuant to bilateral agreements with
partner nations be submitted for congressional authorization in
the Military Construction Authorization Act. This provision
would exclude projects funded using in-kind payments under the
Facility Improvement Program in Japan, since it is a voluntary
program, not a program conducted pursuant to a bilateral
agreement. The provision would also exclude from the
requirement for congressional authorization particular military
construction projects identified in bilateral agreements
entered into before the date of enactment. However, that
exclusion would not extend to general references to replacement
facilities such as those contained in the U.S.-Korea Land
Partnership Plan.
Furthermore, the committee strongly encourages DOD, when
using any future in-kind payments from partner nations, to
first consider and prioritize operational expenses and
facilities restoration, sustainment, and modernization
improvements ahead of military construction. The recommended
provision would also require that DOD include operational
expenses funded through residual value payments in-kind in the
budget justification documents submitted to Congress in
connection with the annual budget request.
Extension and modification of temporary, limited authority to use
operation and maintenance funds for construction projects in
certain areas outside the United States (sec. 2802)
The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize
contingency construction authority in certain areas outside the
United States for an additional year and revise the list of
countries in which such authority may be used in the United
States Africa Command (AFRICOM) area of responsibility (AOR).
If the Secretary of Defense determines that expansion of this
authority to additional countries in the AFRICOM AOR is
necessary, the committee asks that the Department submit a
formal legislative proposal and justification to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Authority for acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses
associated with real property leases and easements (sec. 2811)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to allow for the
use of proceeds from leases and easements to be used to offset
administrative costs incurred by the military departments in
entering into and managing such leases and easements.
Application of cash payments received for utilities and services (sec.
2812)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the secretaries of the military departments, beginning in
fiscal year 2014, to credit cash payments received as
compensation for utilities or services provided to eligible
entities that operate family or military unaccompanied housing
projects to the appropriation or working capital account
currently available for the purpose of furnishing such
utilities or services. This provision was requested by the
Department of Defense to ensure that such reimbursements remain
available in current appropriations to meet the requirements of
the Department of Defense rather than being credited to an
expired account, making them unusable.
Modification of authority to enter into long-term contracts for receipt
of utility services as consideration for utility systems
conveyances (sec. 2813)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2688(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, by
requiring the Secretary of a military department, prior to
conveying a utility system under this section, to obtain an
independent estimate of the level of investment that should be
required to maintain adequate operation of the utility system
over the term of the conveyance.
Acquisition of real property at Naval Base Ventura County, California
(sec. 2814)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to acquire 300 units of military
family housing constructed under section 801 of the Military
Construction Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-115) at Naval Base
Ventura County, California. The committee understands this
housing would be acquired for the purposes of converting it to
meet an enduring need for transient and unaccompanied housing.
Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military Realignment
Realignment of Marine Corps forces in Asia-Pacific Region (sec. 2821)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend a
prohibition on funds for construction activities to implement
the realignment of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa, Japan,
with certain exceptions.
Modification of reporting requirements relating to Guam realignment
(sec. 2822)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
reporting period for the annual Guam realignment report from
calendar year to fiscal year.
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances
Land conveyance Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii (sec. 2831)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to convey approximately 11 acres of
Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, to the Hale Keiki
School in return for a cash payment, in-kind consideration, or
a combination thereof, in an amount that is not less than the
fair market value of the conveyed property, as determined
pursuant to an appraisal acceptable to the Secretary.
Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial transfer (sec. 2832)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to sell or exchange the Mt. Soledad
Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, to an eligible
entity on the condition that it continues to be maintained as a
veterans' memorial.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies as the
Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (sec.
2841)
The committee recommends a provision that would name the
Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies at Honolulu, Hawaii,
as the ``Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security
Studies'' and make other conforming changes.
Items of Special Interest
Department of Defense policy for sustainable buildings
The committee supports the Department of Defense's (DOD)
commitment to promote a policy for sensible and cost-effective
sustainable designs for DOD facilities to reduce life cycle
costs and provide for efficient and effective support of
military missions.
However, the committee is concerned that the Department's
revision of the Unified Facilities Code (UFC) issued in March
2013 regarding High Performance and Sustainable Building
Requirements included direction to DOD components to design all
new construction and major renovation projects to meet a
specific third party certification. The committee is concerned
that the UFC exclusively references a single certification to
the exclusion of other green building certification systems.
The committee recommends that the Department's revised
policy should provide for an equal consideration of other
sustainable building certification systems which provide design
standards for cost-effective facilities, incorporate life cycle
assessments, and are created through a voluntary consensus
process or through international sustainable building codes.
Homeowners Assistance Program
The committee notes that the Homeowners Assistance Program
(HAP) was created in 1966 to provide monetary relief to
eligible service members and federal employee homeowners who
suffered financial loss on the sale of their primary residences
when a base closure or realignment announcement created a
decline in the residential real estate market and owners were
not able to sell their homes under reasonable terms or
conditions. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(Public Law 111-5) expanded the HAP to provide assistance to:
(1) wounded members of the Armed Forces, surviving spouses of
fallen warriors, and wounded Department of Defense (DOD)
civilian homeowners reassigned in furtherance of medical
treatment or rehabilitation or due to medical retirement in
connection with their disability; (2) Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) 2005 impacted homeowners relocating during the
mortgage crisis; and (3) service member homeowners given
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders by the Federal
Government during the mortgage crisis.
The committee notes that as of June 2013, HAP benefits
totaling $1.6 billion have been paid to 9,940 applicants.
However, the committee also understands that payments were made
in error to at least 240 applicants totaling more than $4.5
million in improperly paid HAP benefits. The DOD, as required
by law, is currently in the process of recovering these
improperly paid benefits.
The committee is concerned by the significant number of
documented improper payments under HAP and questions the
adequacy of the Department's process to vet and approve
applications for such benefits. The committee is also concerned
about the financial hardship for service members who received
HAP payments in error and were subsequently directed to repay
the Federal Government. In many cases, service members have
made significant decisions with regard to selling a home based
on their receipt of HAP benefits only to find out later that
such benefits were provided in error and must be repaid.
The committee notes that the Department has established a
multi-phase review process for service members to challenge a
determination by the Department that HAP benefits were provided
improperly. The committee also notes that the Department may,
in some cases, waive its right to collect repayment if the debt
is a result of an erroneous payment and collection would be
against equity and good conscience and not in the best interest
of the United States. The committee expects the Department,
when it deems appropriate, to exercise this waiver.
Military Construction Project Data Sheets
The committee notes that the President's budget request is
accompanied by Military Construction Project Data Sheets, also
known as DD Form 1391 forms, containing the justification,
scope, and cost of each requested military construction
project. The congressional defense committees use each DD Form
1391 as the basis for reviewing the Department's military
construction requirements, proposed new construction to meet
each requirement, and limits of cost and scope of the project.
The committee is aware that the Department considers the
authorization of the proposed military construction project to
be contract authority and the DD Form 1391 is used by the
contracting officer to define the limits of that contract
authority.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense prepares
DD Form 1391s with the intent of establishing flexibility
within each congressional authorization of a military
construction project in order for design agents, construction
agents, and contracting officers to be able to make decisions
about site adaptations, final scope, proposed methods of
construction, and consideration of emerging requirements
without the need for additional authorization from Congress.
While the committee is aware of the need for some degree of
flexibility in order to make efficient use of resources and to
respond to unforeseen requirements that could not feasibly be
discovered during preparation of the defense budget request,
each military construction project should have a clearly
defined primary scope and costs, an identified and
characterized site, a clear estimate of the supporting utility
and infrastructure scope and costs, and a mature plan for other
considerations such as ancillary facilities and real property
necessary to meet the requirement. To ensure this degree of
certainty, Congress each year authorizes and appropriates funds
to carry out planning and design activities without a
congressional authorization for the construction of a project.
The committee is concerned that the justification data
provided for many projects in the budget request and
accompanying DD Form 1391s does not contain information that is
critical to its oversight of the scope and construction of such
projects. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to ensure that each DD Form 1391 clearly and concisely
defines the proposed scope of both the primary and supporting
facilities and infrastructure that will result in a complete
and useable facility without the need for a congressional
authorization of additional construction. The Secretary shall
also ensure that the proposed use of each facility, as
represented by a five or six digit category code, is included
in each DD Form 1391 and is not allowed to be changed during
construction or immediately following construction. Each DD
Form 1391 shall also include a proposed method of construction
and a specification of the proposed design life of the
construction method in order for Congress to be able to assess
the Department's justification for the investment in comparison
to the military requirement. Each DD Form 1391 shall also
include information regarding the need for future phases,
related construction, land acquisitions or leases, and other
activities that will be required to be carried out as part of
the military construction project.
The committee strongly believes that clear, complete, and
concise DD Form 1391s are critical to both the Department of
Defense's effort to manage resources effectively and the
integrity of the congressional authorization of military
construction projects.
Scope of work variations for military construction projects
A February 27, 2012, report by the Department of Defense
Inspector General (DOD IG), titled ``Guidance Needed to Prevent
Military Construction Projects from Exceeding the Approved
Scope of Work,'' found several instances where military
construction projects in Afghanistan significantly exceeded the
scope authorized by Congress. According to the DOD IG, ``DOD
[Department of Defense] officials do not have assurance that
military construction projects are built consistent with
congressional intent and in accordance with legislative
requirements.'' The DOD IG recommended: (1) the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment
(DUSD(I&E)) issue clarification guidance to define the scope of
work outlined in section 2853 of title 10, United States Code,
that may not be exceeded; and (2) the Commanding General of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Director of the Air Force
Center for Engineering and the Environment develop and
implement procedures to perform scope verifications to ensure
compliance with the law. Therefore, the committee directs the
DUSD(I&E), not later than September 30, 2013, to provide the
congressional defense committees a report describing actions
taken in response to the February 2012 DOD IG report.
Traffic safety
The committee has seen anecdotal evidence that the
frequency and severity of traffic accidents at some military
installations have increased significantly in recent years. For
example, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, traffic accidents have
increased by more than 400 percent and injuries resulting from
traffic accidents have increased by more than 200 percent since
2005. The committee is concerned that the increase in traffic
accidents may be, at least partly, attributed to on-base
transportation infrastructure projects not keeping pace with
base population growth.
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
September 30, 2013, regarding traffic accidents at
installations with 25,000 or more permanently assigned service
members, including: (1) an analysis of trends in on-base
traffic accident data; (2) an assessment of whether
transportation infrastructure projects have kept pace with
growth in base populations at such installations; (3) an
analysis of the factors contributing to traffic accidents on
large military installations; (4) any recommendations for
reducing the number of traffic accidents on large military
installations; and (5) any other matters the Secretary
considers appropriate.
U.S. military posture and resiliency in the Asia-Pacific
The committee remains interested in the posture of U.S.
forces in the Asia-Pacific region and the implications of the
strategic rebalance announced as part of the Defense Strategic
Guidance in January 2012. While this rebalance toward the Asia-
Pacific encompasses more than just U.S. military presence and
posture, the current and future U.S. military force posture in
the Asia-Pacific region is a critical element of the overall
geo-political security strategy in Asia.
The committee understands that U.S. Pacific Command is
currently conducting a study of resiliency and developing an
associated resiliency plan as one element of the force posture
and supporting infrastructure. The committee is reluctant to
support new investments in infrastructure until it has reviewed
the study and the plan and better understands both the linkage
between resiliency and strategy and the long term affordability
and sustainability of the plan.
Accordingly, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense
to provide the results of the U.S. Pacific Command's study of
resiliency, with an explanation of how the resiliency plan
supports the overall theater strategic plan, to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
Overview
Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy
defense activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) for fiscal
year 2014, including: the purchase, construction, and
acquisition of plant and capital equipment; research and
development; nuclear weapons; naval nuclear propulsion;
environmental restoration and waste management; operating
expenses; and other expenses necessary to carry out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public
Law 95-91). This title authorizes appropriations in three
categories: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA); (2) defense environmental cleanup; and (3) other
defense activities.
The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at
the Department (rounded up to the first significant decimal
point) totaled $17.8 billion, a 3.2 percent increase above the
fiscal year 2013 appropriated level. Of the total amount
requested:
(1) $11.6 billion is for NNSA, of which:
(a) $7.9 billion is for weapons activities;
(b) $2.1 billion is for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities;
(c) $1.3 billion is for naval reactors; and
(d) $397.8 million is for the Office of the
Administrator;
(2) $5.3 billion is for defense environmental
cleanup;
(3) $749.1 million is for other defense activities;
(4) $94.0 million for Idaho site-wide security; and
(5) $16.0 million for grid security in the Office of
Electricity and Transmission.
The committee recommends $17.8 billion for atomic energy
defense activities. Of the amounts authorized, the committee
recommends:
(1) $11.7 billion for NNSA, of which:
(a) $7.9 billion is for weapons activities;
(b) $2.1 billion is for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities;
(c) $1.3 billion is for naval reactors, the
amount of the budget request; and
(d) $397.8 million is for the Office of the
Administrator, the amount of the budget
request;
(2) $5.3 billion is for defense environmental cleanup
activities (based on not reauthorizing the Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning fund);
(3) $749.1 million is for other defense activities,
the amount of the budget request;
(4) $95.0 million is for Idaho site-wide security;
and
(5) $0 is provided for grid reliability as this is a
homeland security function.
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
total of $11.7 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in
fiscal year 2014 for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) to carry out programs necessary to
national security.
Weapons activities
The committee recommends $7.9 billion for weapons
activities, the amount of the budget request.
The committee recommends funding for these programs as
follows: $2.4 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.7 billion
for campaigns; $1.7 billion for site stewardship; $744.5
million for nuclear operations; $219.2 million for the secure
transportation assets, the amount of the budget request; $256.0
million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response, the
amount of the budget request; and $827.4 million for defense
nuclear security and the Chief Information Officer.
The committee notes that notwithstanding the congressional
support for further modernization of the nuclear weapons
complex infrastructure and the life extension programs, the
committee urges the NNSA to find efficiencies where and
whenever possible. The ability to sustain these increases
during a time of decreasing federal and defense budgets will be
increasingly difficult as time goes on. Good stewardship of the
funding, as well as the nuclear weapons and the nuclear weapons
complex, is critical to the long-term support for and
sustainment of the projected increases.
Directed stockpile work
The committee recommends $2.4 billion for directed
stockpile work. The directed stockpile account supports work
directly related to weapons in the stockpile, including day-to-
day maintenance as well as research, development, engineering,
and certification activities to support planned life extension
programs. This account also includes fabrication and assembly
of weapons components, feasibility studies, weapons
dismantlement and disposal, training, and support equipment.
The committee understands that for fiscal year 2014, the W-
76 program has been corrected to meet the Navy's need by 2019
and has a proposed budget of $235.4 million. The B-61 is
undergoing a life extension (Mod 12) that will make one variant
reducing the number overall needed for the air leg of the
triad.
The funding for B-61 life extension program is proposed at
$537.0 million. The committee understands the importance of the
Mod 12 life extension but is concerned about meeting the 2019
deadline for the version deployed by the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization allies and needs to know what backup plan, if any,
the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy have to
provide temporary lifetime extension of the existing weapons if
the Mod 12 schedule slips, as it most likely will.
The committee remains concerned about overall workflow
coordination between the design laboratories and the production
facilities, Pantex, Y-12, and Kansas City. There could be up to
five life extension programs underway; the B-61, the long-range
stand off weapon, the W-88 fuse program, an interoperable
warhead to replace the W-88 and W-87 systems, and the ongoing
W-76 program. Concurrency, funding delays, or program slips in
any one of these programs can impact the others given they all
use the three production facilities. Elsewhere in this Act, the
committee has asked the Government Accountability Office to
examine this issue.
Finally, the committee has concern about the overall cost
growth of the interoperable warhead which is to replace the W-
88 and W-78 warheads. The total cost profile is not all clear
nor is the balance of this cost profile with the risk of such a
system, which will be certified primarily on computer models.
The Navy's W-88 warhead is in relatively good condition and
over $1.0 billion is being spent on a new fuse system for the
warhead. Certain common-sense questions must be asked why this
W-88 is being replaced by the interoperable system that is
proposed.
Campaigns
The committee recommends $1.7 billion for campaigns. The
campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts involving
the three nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada National
Security Site, and the weapons production plants. Each campaign
is focused on a specific activity to support and maintain the
nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear weapons testing.
These efforts form the scientific underpinning of the
Department of Energy's annual certification that the stockpile
remains safe, secure, and reliable without nuclear weapons
testing.
The committee remains concerned about the hurdles to
ignition at the National Ignition Facility (NIF), as it is not
at all clear what effect not achieving sustained burn or
ignition will have on the stockpile stewardship program. NNSA
needs to communicate clearly what the effects of this gap in
knowledge will have on future computer calculations on the
stockpile.
The committee notes that as life extension programs take on
more importance in the future years, the campaigns,
particularly those associated with science, must not be put
under pressure to curtail ongoing work and budget. The
stockpile stewardship program by all accounts has exceeded all
expectations compared to what it was envisioned in the 1990s.
More importantly, it is the seed corn to bring in the best and
brightest young post-doctorate scientists to work with senior
scientists. Testimony this year before the committee by the
three weapons laboratory directors and the National Academy of
Sciences has supported the success of this program.
Site Stewardship and Nuclear Operations
The committee recommends $2.4 billion for site stewardship
and nuclear operations. These two programs comprised the former
readiness in the technical base (RTBF). This account funds
facilities and infrastructure in the nuclear weapons complex
and includes construction funding for new facilities.
The committee remains concerned about the additional
increase of over $500.0 million for the main building to
replace building 9212, while pushing the scope out for the
other two phases to replace buildings 9215 and 9204-2E. The
original top line cost estimate of $6.5 billion included all
three phases. That appears not to be the case. So, in addition
to the $500.0 million cost increase, the scope has been reduced
or effectively the total cost has increased to a number that
will far exceed the $6.5 billion top line. The committee still
remains concerned about the technology and manufacturing
readiness levels of the processing equipment that must go into
the facility while it is still under design, particularly the
microwave processing equipment. These readiness level issues
should have been fully resolved before design of the facility
was undertaken. The committee directs the Government
Accountability Office to continue quarterly reviews of this
project to the congressional defense committees.
With the deferral of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Replacement project, the committee continues to be concerned
about the lack of a long-term strategy for plutonium
sustainment. Testimony by Dr. Charles F. McMillan before this
committee indicated that a modular approach to a smaller series
of buildings holds promise for lower costs and greater
flexibility. The committee encourages the Department of Defense
and the Nuclear Weapons Council to examine the business case
for such a concept and if proven feasible, to proceed with
engineering design and cost estimation. If a detailed cost
estimate past an initial business case analysis is performed
for this modular building approach, the committee directs the
Government Accountability Office to review the detailed cost
estimate.
The committee is supportive of the High Explosives Pressing
Facility at Pantex and encourages the NNSA to make this
facility a center of excellence in the NNSA for high explosives
pressing and manufacturing.
Secure transportation asset
The committee recommends $219.1 million for the secure
transportation asset, the amount of the budget request. The
secure transportation asset is responsible for the
transportation of nuclear weapons, weapons materials and
components, and other materials requiring safe and secure
transport.
Defense Nuclear Security and Chief Information Officer
The committee recommends $827.4 million for safeguards and
security and the Chief Information Officer, the amount of the
budget request.
Naval Reactors
The committee recommends $1.3 billion for naval reactors,
the amount of the budget request. The committee recommends a
decrease of $2.0 million to the Naval Reactors and
Infrastructure to $453.7 million and an increase to project 13-
D-904 KS Radiological Work and Storage Building of $2.6
million. The committee supports the Spent Fuel Handling
Facility to be constructed at the Idaho National Laboratory.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs
The committee recommends $2.2 billion for the Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation program, an increase of $80.0 million
to the budget request. The National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) has management and oversight
responsibility for the nuclear nonproliferation programs at the
Department of Energy (DOE).
The committee recommends funding for these programs as
follows: $388.3 million for nonproliferation and verification
research and development; $141.7 million for nonproliferation
and international security; $369.6 million for international
nuclear materials production and cooperation, the amount of the
budget request; $582.6 million for fissile materials
disposition; and $424.5 million for the global threat reduction
initiative, the amount of the budget request.
The committee notes that this year the NNSA moved the
nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program ($256.0
million) to the Nonproliferation Account, which artificially
inflates the top line for nonproliferation as compared to prior
years. The result is that the nonproliferation account,
excluding the counterterrorism line, decreases by $400.0
million, 17.2 percent compared to fiscal year 2013.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee directs the
Administrator of the NNSA to enter into an agreement with the
National Academy of Sciences to critically review the status of
the NNSA nonproliferation program and provide long-term
direction to help stem any future possible decreases to the
nonproliferation account, as there is clearly no shortage of
nuclear nonproliferation work around the world.
Nonproliferation and verification research and development
The committee recommends $388.8 million for
nonproliferation and verification research and development. The
committee requests a 5-year road map for the nuclear detonation
detection mission as integrated with the Department of Defense
(DOD) no later than January 31, 2014.
The committee continues to support the valuable research
and development work that is conducted under this program. The
additional funding will support high-priority research
requirements, including work to support the long-term ability
of the United States to monitor and detect clandestine nuclear
weapons development activity, and to attribute nuclear weapons,
improvised nuclear devices, and radiological dispersal devices.
Much of the work supported by NNSA is unique to the Federal
Government and serves as the technical basis for work by many
other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security
and DOD.
Nonproliferation and international security
The committee recommends $150.1 million for
nonproliferation and international security. The committee
authorized a program last year for scientific engagement in the
area of non-proliferation and encourages NNSA to budget for it
accordingly.
International nuclear materials protection and cooperation
The committee recommends $369.6 million for international
nuclear materials protection and cooperation, the amount of the
budget request, and awaits a review of the Second-Line-of-
Defense program.
Fissile Materials Disposition program
The Fissile Materials Disposition program converts excess
weapons grade plutonium to mixed oxide fuel (MOX) for use in
commercial power reactors. The U.S. and Russia have signed the
Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) where
each country has agreed to the disposition of 34 metric tons of
excess weapons grade plutonium, thus removing the possibility
that this plutonium could be reused for weapons or fall into
the hands of terrorists. Russia has modified the agreement so
that they will not produce MOX but instead burn the plutonium
in fast reactors. After the U.S. considered more than 40
different options on how to disposition surplus plutonium, a
2010 amendment to the agreement eliminated immobilization as an
option and selected MOX as the disposition path for the U.S.
share of the plutonium. The U.S. has agreed to assist Russia in
its effort with a contribution of $400.0 million.
For fiscal year 2014, the Fissile Materials Disposition
program, which will blend surplus weapons plutonium with
depleted uranium to be used as commercial reactor fuel--MOX--
will slow down program and construction activities to conduct a
strategic review. The committee is concerned that NNSA's
decision to slow down construction and study alternatives to
MOX could add considerable costs and uncertainty to the Fissile
Materials Disposition Program, result in fines due to South
Carolina of $100 million per year, strand surplus plutonium at
Pantex and the Savannah River Site, and lead to the
renegotiation of the PMDA. As such, the committee directs the
strategic review to include but not be limited to MOX. In
considering MOX, the strategic review must take account of the
investments made to date and ways to increase efficiency and to
reduce the cost of the MOX program. Because the committee added
$80.0 million in fiscal year 2014 to the program, the committee
stresses to the Department of Energy, that during the review,
it minimizes any impact to the progress of the program.
While the current MOX construction project is over 50
percent complete, it is approximately $3.0 billion over budget
(from $4.8 billion to $7.7 billion) and three years late to
completion (fiscal year 2020 instead of fiscal year 2017) due
to a range of factors including a lower than planned funding
profile, poor contractor performance, and poor management by
NNSA. The Government Accountability Office has testified before
the committee that the total life cycle cost will exceed $24.2
billion, including actual costs of $5.2 billion for prior years
(fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2012). The estimate stretches
out to fiscal year 2036. Last year, the fiscal year 2013 budget
request had a proposal of funding the program at $921.0 million
for fiscal 2013 and $721.0 million for fiscal year 2014, a
reduction of $200.0 million. In an effort to minimize the
impacts of the strategic review, the committee recommends
$582.6 million for fissile materials disposition, an increase
of $80.0 million above the amount of the budget request.
Global threat reduction initiative
The committee recommends $424.5 million for the global
threat reduction initiative, the amount of the budget request.
The committee supports this effort to secure within 4 years
vulnerable nuclear material that could be used in a dirty bomb
or in an improvised nuclear device.
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response
The committee recommends $256.0 million for nuclear
counterterrorism incident response, the amount of the budget
request.
Office of the Administrator
The committee recommends $397.8 million for the Office of
the Administrator.
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$5.3 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at
the DOE. The defense environmental cleanup activities support
the cleanup of contaminated facilities, soil, ground and
surface water, and the treatment and disposal of radioactive
and other waste generated through the production of nuclear
weapons and weapons materials. The Environmental Management
program was established in 1989 to clean up 50 years of Cold
War waste from the production of nuclear weapons and materials
including plutonium and highly enriched uranium. The committee
notes that a legislative assumption accompanies the budget
request of $463.0 million for the uranium enrichment
decontamination and decommissioning fund, to reauthorize
section 1101 of the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (P.L. 102-48, 42
U.S.C. 2297g) for industry contributions. As in fiscal year
2013, this legislation was not reauthorized and the committee
assumes it will not be reauthorized again this year.
Accordingly, the committee redistributes the $462.0 million
associated with this assumption to other higher priority
cleanup needs in the Department.
Savannah River Site
The committee recommends $1.2 billion for the Savannah
River Site cleanup, an increase of $150.0 million, to help
accelerate and meet tank stabilization milestones under the
consent order with the State of South Carolina. The committee
commends the NNSA and the Office of Environmental Management
for continuing operations at the H canyon, which is the only
large-scale reprocessing line left in the United States. The H
canyon is the Nation's last full reprocessing line and will
continue to serve vital missions whether it involves purifying
plutonium for mixed oxide fuel or down blending waste from
Canada containing highly enriched uranium. The committee is
aware of the critical milestones with the State of South
Carolina for tank close-out by 2028. In that regard, the start-
up of the Salt Waste Processing Facility is a critical element
to separate high level waste from the low level waste. The
committee expects to be informed of the final baseline cost
estimate for the Salt Waste Processing Facility due to the
delays of the large vessels that are part of the facility.
Waste Treatment Plant
The committee continues to follow the progress at the Waste
Treatment Plant (WTP) at DOE Hanford Site in Richland,
Washington. Unlike the Savannah River Site, the composition of
the waste in the tanks is non-uniform adding complexity to the
separation and treatment of high and low level waste. The
Department is encouraged to expedite the treatment of the low
level waste streams and come to a decision on whether an
additional pre-treatment plant is needed for the high level
waste stream. The overall completion cost of the project has
risen from $5.8 billion to $12.3 billion. The construction of
an additional pre-treatment plant for high level waste will
increase the cost further. The committee directs the Department
to ensure the committee is informed of decisions on directly
treating the low level waste and whether another pre-treatment
plant is needed for the high level waste. Elsewhere in this
Act, the committee has directed the Government Accountability
Office to give the committee quarterly reviews of the project.
Hanford Site
The committee recommends $941.8 million for the Hanford
River Site (excluding the waste treatment and immobilization
plant), an increase of $20.0 million for the River Corridor
cleanup to help accelerate and stabilize the chromium
groundwater contamination as well as nuclear facility cleanup.
Idaho National Laboratory
The committee recommends $395.0 million, an increase of
$30.0 million for the Idaho Waste Cleanup to continue to remove
the transuranic waste and other buried waste, as applicable,
for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and to continue
sodium bearing waste treatment operations.
Los Alamos National Laboratory
The committee recommends $259.8 million for Los Alamos
National Laboratory to continue to remove transuranic waste for
shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and monitor
groundwater contamination.
Oak Ridge Reservation
The committee recommends $203.9 million for the Oak Ridge
Reservation, an increase of $10.0 million to continue
consolidation of special nuclear material associated with
uranium 233.
Office of River Protection
The committee recommends $1.2 billion, an increase of $50.0
million for radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and
disposition to increase surveillance and treat transuranic
waste applicable to shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
The committee recommends $236.4 million, an increase of
$33.0 million to continue operations and replace aging
equipment, especially those related to safety. The Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant is an important operation upon which the
entire cleanup operations relies upon to dispose of defense
transuranic waste.
Security
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for
security at the Richland/Hanford site to $89.1 million. The
Department should accelerate efforts at Hanford to remove the
category I nuclear material from the site to lower security
costs.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for
security at the Savannah River Site given the large quantity of
category I nuclear material it must safeguard.
Technology Development
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for
technology development to $34.1 million.
Program Direction
The committee recommends $300.8 million for program
direction, an increase of $20.0 million. The Office of
Environmental Management has a staff of over 1,400 civil
servants who manage this long and difficult job of honoring the
cleanup commitment made by the Department to the local
communities at these former defense sites. The committee notes
that the recommended level is still some $20.0 million short of
the levels in fiscal years 2012 and 2103.
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$749.1 million for other defense activities, the amount of the
budget request; the committee recommends $251.9 million for
health, safety, and security, the amount of the budget request;
$196.3 million for specialized security, the amount of the
budget request; $176.9 million for Legacy Management, the
amount of the budget request; $118.8 million for other defense-
related administrative support, the amount of the budget
request; and $5.0 million for the Office of Hearings and
Appeals, the amount of the budget request. Legislative
proposals elsewhere in the Act speak to security at facilities
containing categories I and II of nuclear material.
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Establishment of Director for Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation in
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3111)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2401
et. Seq.) to establish an Office of Cost Analysis and Program
Evaluation (CAPE) whose director is Senate confirmed. The
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has recently
established a position in an attempt to control program cost
escalation, and they should be commended for this action. This
provision makes the position and office permanent in statue
given that several such positions and offices have been
established and then de-established in both the Department of
Energy and the NNSA. The cost growth of nearly every program in
the NNSA requires a permanent office and position, but even
more important is that the position be Senate confirmed so that
individual answers to Congress on their views and progress in
controlling cost growth of programs such as the B-61 life
extension, the Uranium Processing Facility, the Mixed Oxide
Fuel Program, and eventually the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research Replacement Facility. The Government Accountability
Office estimates that through 2031, the NNSA will undertake an
estimated $200.0 billion in work scope whether it is life
extension programs or recapitalizing new facilities in the
complex. While the staff size of the NNSA is relatively small,
approximately 1,800 federal positions, the committee expects
the office to phase in its activities in over several years and
to work jointly with the Department of Defense (DOD) CAPE
Office, not only to train personnel but to conduct joint cost
estimates of an entire strategic weapon system consisting of
the delivery vehicle and the warhead. Currently, these
estimates are conducted separately; the warhead through the
Nuclear Weapons Council under the 6.X process, and the delivery
systems through the DOD acquisition processes.
Plan for improvement and integration of financial management of nuclear
security enterprise (sec. 3112)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to develop a plan for a common cost structure between
activities at different sites with the purpose of comparing how
efficiently different sites within the NNSA complex are
carrying out similar activities. The Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has commented numerous times that each site in the
NNSA complex uses a different cost accounting structure for
direct and indirect costs. While such cost accounting
structures are compliant with the requirements outlined in
section 9904.418 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, it
is virtually impossible to compare how funds are spent at
different sites. This dilemma has resulted in a degraded
ability to perform oversight of the NNSA sites and their
contractors. GAO pointed out this issue with respect to
accurate costing of facility operations in their report, GAO-
10-582, ``Actions Needed to Identify Total Costs of Weapons
Complex Infrastructure and Research Production Capabilities,''
and earlier across the Department of Energy complex in GAO-05-
897, ``Department of Energy: Additional Opportunities Exist for
reducing Laboratory Contractors' Support Costs.'' The committee
recognizes that such a transition will take time and effort
given the number of different business systems at each site and
accordingly gives a 4-year implementation date for bringing the
NNSA complex to a common cost structure.
Not later than June 15, 2014, the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation shall brief the congressional
defense committees on an assessment of the plan developed by
the Administrator in this provision that includes the extent to
which the plan will result in the improvement and integration
of the financial management of the nuclear security enterprise
and whether sufficient resources are available to enable
implementation of the plan.
Certification of security measures at atomic energy defense facilities
(sec. 3113)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Energy to certify facilities containing categories
I and II quantities of special nuclear material as meeting
Department of Energy (DOE) security standards and regulations
for physical security of facilities and surrounding
infrastructure. For facilities that cannot be certified, the
facility will stop routine operations until they meet the
applicable standards and regulations. There is a national
security waiver for continued operations of non-certified
facilities.
The security of special nuclear materials in quantities
that present a threat to national security demand nothing short
of perfection. There simply is no other acceptable standard.
Accountability should be clear and direct starting at the
highest official in the responsible organization. The Atomic
Energy Act defines that official as the Secretary of Energy.
The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to develop a
system that tracks deficiencies in securing special nuclear
materials at DOE atomic energy defense facilities. The system
shall meet the auditing standards of the Government
Accountability Office (GAO).
The committee directs GAO to perform an audit of the
tracking system no later than June 30, 2014, to and report the
findings to the congressional defense committees.
Plan for incorporating exascale computing into the stockpile
stewardship program (sec. 3114)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521) to provide for a
long-term strategy on exascale computing in the stockpile
stewardship program. The provision would ensure that the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) continues its
leadership role, a role held since the Manhattan Project's
collaboration with John Von Neumann, of developing large-scale
computing machines. This provision would require the NNSA to
provide a long-term strategy for achieving exascale levels of
computing (10 to the 18th floating point operations per second)
that is necessary to model the full three-dimensional physics
of a nuclear weapon.
Integrated plutonium strategy (sec. 3115)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521) to provide for a
long-term plutonium strategy for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) as part of its Stockpile Stewardship and
Management Plan. Plutonium sustainment is at the core of the
NNSA stockpile mission. This integrated plan would ensure the
NNSA remains focused on its plutonium mission.
Authorization of modular building strategy as an alternative to the
replacement project for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Building, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico (sec.
3116)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3144(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to permit consideration
of a modular building strategy for engineering and design if it
meets long term stockpile requirements.
Increase in construction design threshold (sec. 3117)
The committee recommends a provision that would increase
the major capital construction design threshold for the
National Nuclear Security Administration from $600,000 to $1.2
million to account for increased construction costs.
Clarification of form of submission of cost estimates on life extension
programs and new nuclear facilities (sec. 3118)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 4217(b) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
2537(b)) to require an unclassified version of the cost
estimate with a classified annex if necessary.
Subtitle C--Reports
Assessment of nuclear nonproliferation programs of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (sec. 3121)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
National Nuclear Security Administration to undergo a review of
their nuclear nonproliferation programs by the National
Academies of Science. There is concern in the committee that as
programs finish their near-term goals, there is no thought
given to future efforts in nuclear non-proliferation. This
provision seeks to ensure such future missions are considered.
Modification of reviews relating to cost-benefit analysis of management
and operating contracts of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (sec. 3122)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3121(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to lower the number of
mandatory reports by the Government Accountability Office.
Modification of deadline for certain reports relating to program on
scientific engagement for nonproliferation (sec. 3123)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3122(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to require a 30-day
notice for extending the program on scientific engagement for
non-proliferation to a new country. The provision gives the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration a
national security waiver of the requirement as long as there is
a report filed within 30 days.
Modification of certain reports on cost containment for uranium
capabilities replacement project (sec. 3124)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3123(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. 112-239) to change the Government
Accountability Office reporting requirement from the end of
project life to 1 year after the date of enactment in
consultation with the congressional defense committees. The end
of project life would require reporting for approximately the
next 23 years with 90 such reports.
Submission of interim report of Congressional Advisory Panel on the
Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 3125)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3166(d)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to extend the date of
the interim report from 180 days after the date of enactment to
180 days after the first meeting of the advisory panel.
Subtitle D--Technical Corrections
Technical corrections to the National Nuclear Security Administration
Act (sec. 3131)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
National Nuclear Security Administration Act (41 U.S.C. 2401
et. seq.) with technical and clarifying corrections.
Technical corrections to the Atomic Energy Defense Act (sec. 3132)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Atomic Energy Defense Act (42 U.S.C. 2501 et. seq.) with
technical and clarifying corrections.
Budget Item
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
The Department of Energy (DOE) budget request for fiscal
year 2014 made an assumption of $463.0 million based on a
legislative proposal being enacted to reauthorize section 1101
of the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (P.L. 102-48, 42 USC 2297g). A
similar legislative assumption was made in the fiscal year 2013
request, which the committee assumed would not be reauthorized.
Similar to last fiscal year, the committee assumes again that
this legislation will not be reauthorized ($463.0 million
decrease) and increases by $462.0 million the following
accounts: Mixed Oxide Fuel construction, project 99-D-143,
$80.0 million; Hanford River Corridor and other clean-up
operations, $20.0 million; Idaho clean-up and waste
disposition, $30.0 million; Hanford radioactive waste liquid
tank stabilization, $50.0 million; Savannah River radioactive
waste tank stabilization, $150.0 million; Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant, $33.0 million; Program Direction, $20.0 million;
security at Richland and Hanford, $10.0 million; security at
Savannah River Site, $10.0 million; and Technology Development,
$10.0 million.
Items of Special Interest
B-61 Mod 12 life extension program
The National Nuclear Security Agency has now entered phase
6.3, engineering development, of the B-61 Mod 12 life extension
program (LEP). The committee has reviewed the Weapons Design
and Cost Report and is concerned about possible concurrency in
the overall program, work load scheduling with other programs
underway at the production sites (Kansas City, Y-12, and
Pantex), as well as technology and manufacturing maturation.
The committee directs the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to submit a report that examines key elements of the B-61
Mod 12 LEP within 180 days of the enactment of this Act. These
elements shall include: (1) technology readiness and
manufacturing readiness levels; (2) research and development
and productions concurrency; (3) work load and scheduling
between the production sites and the weapons laboratories; (4)
coordination and integration with other LEP programs such as
W88 Alt 370, W76, W78/88, and long-range standoff warhead life
extensions; and (5) ongoing developmental and production work
by the Air Force for the tail kit guidance assembly. After the
initial report, GAO shall review the B-61 at key phases of the
6.X process (production engineering, first production, and
quantity production) at the direction of the committee.
Review of National Nuclear Security Administration Capital Projects
Serious questions have been raised about the National
Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) analyses of project
alternatives associated with critical decision 1 under
Department of Energy (DOE) Order 413.3B, ``Program and Project
Management of Capital Assets'' stemming from NNSA's decisions
in 2012 to cancel and defer two major nuclear facilities after
spending more than a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars
on the design of each facility. Specifically, NNSA announced in
January 2012 its decision to cancel the Pit Disassembly and
Conversion Facility (PDCF) after having spent 12 years and $730
million on the facility design. PDCF was one of two planned
high-hazard nuclear facilities needed to support NNSA's
Plutonium Disposition Program. In cancelling PDCF, NNSA
explained that other alternatives had been identified that
would better meet the mission need. Also, in February 2012 NNSA
announced its decision to defer for at least five years another
planned major nuclear facility needed for plutonium research--
the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR)
Nuclear Facility. NNSA spent about 10 years and more than $350
million on the design of the CMRR Nuclear Facility. In
cancelling this project, NNSA explained that it has adequate
alternatives for conducting plutonium research in the near term
using existing facilities and that it is investigating other
alternatives to building the CMRR. Other projects that have had
similar issues include NNSA's Radioactive Liquid Waste
Treatment Facility (RLWTF) at Los Alamos and the Uranium 233
Disposition Project managed by the Office of Environmental
Management (EM). NNSA is currently reaffirming the CD-1
decision regarding the alternatives analysis for the RLWTF and
EM cancelled the U-233 project after spending approximately
$255 million on design and construction.
Given the amount of time and money spent on designing these
facilities before they were cancelled and deferred, these
decisions raise serious questions about how well NNSA
scrutinizes the analyses of alternatives prior to submitting
them for review and approval. The committee is also concerned
about the extent to which other NNSA projects are proceeding
through design without a rigorous analysis of alternatives and
the extent to which NNSA projects may languish in the design
phase without proper oversight to ensure that the need for
these projects remains viable. As such, the committee directs
that the Government Accountability Office investigate the
following questions and report back to the committee with
initial results no later than February 28, 2014 and a final
report no later than September 9, 2013 on the following issues:
(1) What is NNSA's process for conducting analyses of
alternatives prior to project starts, and to what
extent have projects deviated from the alternatives
originally selected for those projects?
(2) How does NNSA plan for and execute its projects'
design phases prior to the establishment of a cost and
schedule baseline, and what improvements if any can be
made?
(3) How much has NNSA spent in recent years on
capital acquisition projects prior to critical decision
2, the point at which 90 percent design maturity is now
required for high-hazard nuclear facilities, and how do
these costs compare to total project costs?
(4) What are the roles, responsibilities, and
accountability of federal project directors during the
design phases of capital acquisition projects?
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant project
The committee notes that the Hanford Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant may change scope for the high level waste
pre-treatment systems and begin treating only low level waste
streams. The committee directs the Government Accountability
Office to monitor the status of this construction and to
periodically brief the committee on the status of construction
and operations at the facility through the end of fiscal year
2014.
Assessment of Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities that will
be transferred to the Department of Energy Office of
Environmental Management
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
currently operates in a number of older nuclear facilities that
will be transferred to the Office of Environmental Management
(EM) for demolition and decontamination. The committee directs
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to assess the
inventory of facilities that NNSA plans to transfer to EM,
which will have the responsibility to remove and remediate the
surrounding area. GAO shall provide the results of this
assessment to the committee by June 30, 2014, or at a date
determined by the committee.
Travel by scientists and other technical personnel to conferences and
other venues of benefit to the NNSA mission
The committee directs the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to assess the impact
that recent Office of Management and Budget directives have had
on the ability of federal and national laboratory scientists
and other technical personnel to travel to professional
conferences and other venues associated with advancing
scientific and technical knowledge that is of benefit to the
NNSA mission. This assessment shall be due to the congressional
defense committees by February 28, 2014.
Use of the term National Security Laboratory in the Atomic Energy
Defense Act
The committee notes that the use of the term ``National
Security Laboratory'' in the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50
U.S.C. 2501 et. seq.) is not meant to preclude the use by the
Federal Government of other Department of Energy national
laboratories as defined in section 2 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (Public Law 109-58, 42 U.S.C. 15801) who perform
important work in a broad area of national security activities.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Authorization (sec. 3201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at $29.9 million.
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)
The committee recommends a provision that would re-
authorize certain aspects of the Maritime Administration.
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)
The committee recommends a provision that 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 in accordance with established
procedures.
Consistent with the previously expressed views of the
committee, the provision would also require that decisions by
agency heads to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific
entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on
authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of
sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and
other applicable provisions of law.
Funding tables (secs. 4101-4701)
The committee recommends provisions that provide line-item
guidance for the funding authorized in this Act, in accordance
with the requirements of section 4001. The provisions also
display the line-item funding requested by the administration
in the fiscal year 2014 budget request and show where the
committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts, as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from
the administration request, as set forth in budget
justification documents of the Department of Defense, without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
(In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 Senate Senate
Request Change Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE
National Defense, Base Budget
Function 051, Department of Defense-Military
Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations
Title I--Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army..... 5,024,387 -19,984 5,004,403
Missile Procurement, Army...... 1,334,083 1,334,083
Procurement of Weapons & 1,597,267 -159,439 1,437,828
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army 1,540,437 -84,800 1,455,637
Other Procurement, Army........ 6,465,218 6,465,218
Aircraft Procurement, Navy..... 17,927,651 32,000 17,959,651
Weapons Procurement, Navy...... 3,122,193 6,400 3,128,593
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy 589,267 589,267
& Marine Corps................
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy 14,077,804 155,300 14,233,104
Other Procurement, Navy........ 6,310,257 6,310,257
Procurement, Marine Corps...... 1,343,511 1,343,511
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 11,398,901 -17,200 11,381,701
Missile Procurement, Air Force. 5,343,286 5,343,286
Procurement of Ammunition, Air 759,442 759,442
Force.........................
Other Procurement, Air Force... 16,760,581 16,760,581
Procurement, Defense-Wide...... 4,534,083 11,844 4,545,927
Joint Urgent Operational Needs 98,800 98,800
Fund..........................
Subtotal, Title I--Procurement. 98,227,168 -75,879 98,151,289
Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Research, Development, Test and 7,989,102 29,578 8,018,680
Evaluation, Army..............
Research, Development, Test and 15,974,780 -100,875 15,873,905
Evaluation, Navy..............
Research, Development, Test and 25,702,946 -49,600 25,653,346
Evaluation, Air Force.........
Research, Development, Test and 17,667,108 142,156 17,809,264
Evaluation, Defense-Wide......
Operational Test & Evaluation, 186,300 186,300
Defense.......................
Subtotal, Title II--Research, 67,520,236 21,259 67,541,495
Development, Test and
Evaluation....................
Title III--Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army.. 35,073,077 616,600 35,689,677
Operation & Maintenance, Army 3,095,036 36,400 3,131,436
Reserve.......................
Operation & Maintenance, Army 7,054,196 74,200 7,128,396
National Guard................
Operation & Maintenance, Navy.. 39,945,237 434,768 40,380,005
Operation & Maintenance, Marine 6,254,650 56,000 6,310,650
Corps.........................
Operation & Maintenance, Navy 1,197,752 10,800 1,208,552
Reserve.......................
Operation & Maintenance, Marine 263,317 263,317
Corps Reserve.................
Operation & Maintenance, Air 37,270,842 512,600 37,783,442
Force.........................
Operation & Maintenance, Air 3,164,607 8,700 3,173,307
Force Reserve.................
Operation & Maintenance, Air 6,566,004 28,200 6,594,204
National Guard................
Operation & Maintenance, 32,997,693 -244,401 32,753,292
Defense-Wide..................
United States Court of Appeals 13,606 13,606
for the Armed Forces..........
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster 109,500 109,500
and Civic Aid.................
Cooperative Threat Reduction... 528,455 528,455
DoD Acquisition Workforce 256,031 256,031
Development Fund..............
Environmental Restoration, Army 298,815 298,815
Environmental Restoration, Navy 316,103 316,103
Environmental Restoration, Air 439,820 439,820
Force.........................
Environmental Restoration, 10,757 10,757
Defense-Wide..................
Environmental Restoration, 237,443 237,443
Formerly Used Defense Sites...
Overseas Contingency Operations 5,000 5,000
Transfer Fund.................
Subtotal, Title III--Operation 175,097,941 1,533,867 176,631,808
and Maintenance...............
Title IV--Military Personnel
Military Personnel 130,399,881 -270,000 130,129,881
Appropriations................
Medicare-Eligible Retiree 6,676,750 6,676,750
Health Fund Contributions.....
Subtotal, Title IV--Military 137,076,631 -270,000 136,806,631
Personnel.....................
Title XIV--Other Authorizations
Working Capital Fund, Army..... 25,158 25,158
Working Capital Fund, Air Force 61,731 61,731
Working Capital Fund, Defense- 46,428 46,428
Wide..........................
Working Capital Fund, Defense 1,412,510 1,412,510
Commissary Agency.............
National Defense Sealift Fund.. 730,700 -112,200 618,500
Defense Health Program......... 33,054,528 218,000 33,272,528
Chemical Agents & Munitions 1,057,123 1,057,123
Destruction, Defense..........
Drug Interdiction & Counter- 938,545 -5,840 932,705
Drug Activities, Defense......
Office of the Inspector General 312,131 35,900 348,031
Subtotal, Title XIV--Other 37,638,854 135,860 37,774,714
Authorizations................
Total, Division A: Department 515,560,830 1,345,107 516,905,937
of Defense Authorizations.....
Division B: Military Construction Authorizations
Military Construction
Army........................... 1,119,875 1,119,875
Navy........................... 1,700,269 -85,673 1,614,596
Air Force...................... 1,156,573 -192,377 964,196
Defense-Wide................... 3,985,300 -1,054,641 2,930,659
Army National Guard............ 320,815 320,815
Air National Guard............. 119,800 119,800
Army Reserve................... 174,060 174,060
Navy Reserve................... 32,976 32,976
Air Force Reserve.............. 45,659 45,659
Chemical Demilitarization 122,536 122,536
Construction..................
NATO Security Investment 239,700 239,700
Program.......................
Subtotal, Military Construction 9,017,563 -1,332,691 7,684,872
Family Housing
Construction, Army............. 44,008 -16,600 27,408
Operation and Maintenance, Army 512,871 512,871
Construction, Navy and Marine 73,407 73,407
Corps.........................
Operation and Maintenance, Navy 389,844 389,844
and Marine Corps..............
Construction, Air Force........ 76,360 76,360
Operation and Maintenance, Air 388,598 388,598
Force.........................
Operation and Maintenance, 55,845 55,845
Defense-Wide..................
Family Housing Improvement Fund 1,780 1,780
Subtotal, Family Housing....... 1,542,713 -16,600 1,526,113
Base Realignment and Closure
Army........................... 180,401 180,401
Navy........................... 144,580 144,580
Air Force...................... 126,376 126,376
Subtotal, Base Realignment and 451,357 451,357
Closure.......................
Total, Division B: Military 11,011,633 -1,349,291 9,662,342
Construction Authorizations...
Total 051, Department of 526,572,463 -4,184 526,568,279
Defense-Military..............
Function 053, Atomic Energy Activities
Division C: Department of Energy National Security and Independent
Federal Agency Authorizations
Department of Energy Authorizations
Energy Programs
Electricity Delivery and Energy 16,000 -16,000
Reliability...................
Nuclear Energy................. 94,000 94,000
Subtotal, Energy Programs...... 110,000 -16,000 94,000
National Nuclear Security Administration
Weapons Activities............. 7,868,409 7,868,409
Defense Nuclear 2,140,142 80,000 2,220,142
Nonproliferation..............
Naval Reactors................. 1,246,134 1,246,134
Office of the Administrator.... 397,784 397,784
Subtotal, National Nuclear 11,254,685 80,000 11,732,469
Security Administration.......
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Defense Environmental Cleanup.. 5,316,909 -80,000 5,236,909
Other Defense Activities....... 749,080 749,080
Subtotal, Environmental and 6,065,989 -80,000 5,985,989
Other Defense Activities......
Subtotal, Department of Energy 17,828,458 -16,000 17,812,458
Authorizations................
Independent Federal Agency Authorization
Defense Nuclear Facilities 29,915 29,915
Safety Board..................
Subtotal, Independent Federal 29,915 29,915
Agency Authorization..........
Subtotal, Division C: 17,858,373 -16,000 17,842,373
Department of Energy National
Security and Independent
Federal Agency Authorizations.
Total, 053, Atomic Energy 17,858,373 -16,000 17,842,373
Defense Activities............
Total, National Defense, Base 544,430,836 -20,184 544,410,652
Budget........................
National Defense, Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Budget
Function 051, Department of Defense-Military
Procurement, OCO
Aircraft Procurement, Army..... 771,788 771,788
Missile Procurement, Army...... 128,645 128,645
Procurement of Ammunition, Army 180,900 180,900
Other Procurement, Army........ 603,123 603,123
Joint Improvised Explosive 1,000,000 -151,000 849,000
Device Defeat Fund............
Aircraft Procurement, Navy..... 240,696 240,696
Weapons Procurement, Navy...... 86,500 86,500
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy 206,821 206,821
& Marine Corps................
Other Procurement, Navy........ 17,968 17,968
Procurement, Marine Corps...... 129,584 129,584
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 115,668 115,668
Missile Procurement, Air Force. 24,200 24,200
Procurement of Ammunition, Air 159,965 159,965
Force.........................
Other Procurement, Air Force... 2,574,846 2,574,846
Procurement, Defense-Wide...... 111,275 111,275
Joint Urgent Operational Needs 15,000 15,000
Fund..........................
Subtotal, Procurement.......... 6,366,979 -151,000 6,215,979
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, OCO
Research, Development, Test and 7,000 7,000
Evaluation, Army..............
Research, Development, Test and 34,426 34,426
Evaluation, Navy..............
Research, Development, Test and 9,000 9,000
Evaluation, Air Force.........
Research, Development, Test and 66,208 66,208
Evaluation, Defense-Wide......
Subtotal, Research, 116,634 116,634
Development, Test and
Evaluation....................
Operation and Maintenance, OCO
Operation & Maintenance, Army.. 29,279,633 129,300 29,408,933
Operation & Maintenance, Army 42,935 42,935
Reserve.......................
Operation & Maintenance, Army 199,371 199,371
National Guard................
Afghanistan Security Forces 7,726,720 7,726,720
Fund..........................
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund 279,000 -29,000 250,000
Operation & Maintenance, Navy.. 6,067,993 6,067,993
Operation & Maintenance, Marine 2,669,815 26,000 2,695,815
Corps.........................
Operation & Maintenance, Navy 55,700 55,700
Reserve.......................
Operation & Maintenance, Marine 12,534 12,534
Corps Reserve.................
Operation & Maintenance, Air 10,005,224 10,005,224
Force.........................
Operation & Maintenance, Air 32,849 32,849
Force Reserve.................
Operation & Maintenance, Air 22,200 22,200
National Guard................
Operation & Maintenance, 6,435,078 7,000 6,442,078
Defense-Wide..................
Subtotal, Operation and 62,829,052 133,300 62,962,352
Maintenance...................
Military Personnel, OCO
Military Personnel 9,689,307 9,689,307
Appropriations................
Medicare-Eligible Retiree 164,033 164,033
Health Fund Contributions.....
Subtotal, Military Personnel... 9,853,340 9,853,340
Other Authorizations, OCO
Working Capital Fund, Army..... 44,732 44,732
Working Capital Fund, Air Force 88,500 88,500
Working Capital Fund, Defense- 131,678 131,678
Wide..........................
Defense Health Program......... 904,201 904,201
Drug Interdiction & Counter- 376,305 376,305
Drug Activities, Defense......
Office of the Inspector General 10,766 10,766
Subtotal, Other Authorizations. 1,556,182 1,556,182
Total, National Defense, OCO 80,722,187 -17,700 80,704,487
Budget........................
MEMORANDUM: SUMMARY TOTALS
Department of Defense-Military, 526,572,463 -4,184 526,568,279
Base Budget (051).............
Department of Defense-Military, 80,722,187 -17,700 80,704,487
OCO Budget (051)..............
Total, Department of Defense- 607,294,650 -21,884 607,272,766
Military (051)................
Atomic energy defense 17,858,373 -16,000 17,842,373
activities, Base Budget (053).
Total, National Defense (050).. 625,153,023 -37,884 625,115,139
MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
Title XIV--Armed Forces 67,800 67,800
Retirement Home (Function 600)
MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS)
Title X--General Transfer [4,000,000] [4,000,000]
Authority (non-add)...........
Title XV--Special Transfer [4,000,000] [4,000,000]
Authority (non-add)...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
(In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 Senate Senate
Request Change Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Discretionary Authorizations
(Programs in the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee)
National Defense (050)
Department of Defense-Military, 526,572,463 -4,184 526,568,279
Base Budget (051).............
Department of Defense-Military, 80,722,187 -17,700 80,704,487
OCO Budget (051)..............
Atomic energy defense 17,858,373 -16,000 17,842,373
activities, Base Budget (053).
Total, National Defense (050).. 625,153,023 -37,884 625,115,139
Other Defense Discretionary Authorizations
(Programs Outside the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committees or
Already Authorized)
Department of Defense-Military (051)
Defense Production Act 25,135 25,135
Purchases.....................
Indefinite Account: Disposal Of 10,000 10,000
DOD Real Property.............
Indefinite Account: Lease Of 30,000 30,000
DOD Real Property.............
Subtotal, Department of Defense- 65,135 65,135
Military (051)................
Atomic energy defense activites (053)
Formerly Utilized Sites 104,000 104,000
Remedial Action Program.......
Subtotal, Atomic energy defense 104,000 104,000
activities (053)..............
Defense-related activities (054)
Other Discretionary Programs... 7,407,000 7,407,000
Subtotal, Defense-related 7,407,000 7,407,000
activities (054)..............
Total, Other Defense 7,576,135 7,576,135
Discretionary Authorizations
(050).........................
Discretionary Budget Authority Implication (050)
National Defense (050)
Department of Defense--Military 607,359,785 -21,884 607,337,901
(051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense 17,962,373 -16,000 17,946,373
Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities 7,407,000 7,407,000
(054).........................
Total, Discretionary Budget 632,729,158 -37,884 632,691,274
Authority Implication, 050....
National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates)
Department of Defense-Military (051)
Concurrent receipt accrual 7,126,000 7,126,000
payments to the Military
Retirement Fund...............
Revolving, trust and other DOD 1,156,000 1,156,000
Mandatory.....................
Offsetting receipts............ -1,752,000 -1,752,000
Subtotal, Department of Defense- 6,530,000 6,530,000
Military (051)................
Atomic energy defense activites (053)
Energy employees occupational 1,281,000 1,281,000
illness compensation programs
and other.....................
Subtotal, Atomic energy defense 1,281,000 1,281,000
activities (053)..............
Defense-related activities (054)
Radiation exposure compensation 76,000 76,000
trust fund....................
Payment to CIA retirement fund 514,000 514,000
and other.....................
Subtotal, Defense-related 590,000 590,000
activities (054)..............
Total, National Defense 8,401,000 8,401,000
Mandatory Programs (050)......
Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority Implication (050)
Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority Implication (050)
Department of Defense--Military 613,889,785 -21,884 613,867,901
(051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense 19,243,373 -16,000 19,227,373
Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities 7,997,000 7,997,000
(054).........................
Total, Budget Authority 641,130,158 -37,884 641,092,274
Implication (050).............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
01 UTILITY F/W 1 19,730 1 19,730
AIRCRAFT..........
03 AERIAL COMMON 4 142,050 -4 0 0 142,050
SENSOR (ACS) (MIP)
Reduction of 4 [-4] [-114,700]
EMARSS LRIP
aircraft........
Modification of [114,700]
transferred
Liberty A/C.....
04 MQ-1 UAV........... 15 518,460 15 518,460
05 RQ-11 (RAVEN)...... 10,772 10,772
ROTARY
06 HELICOPTER, LIGHT 10 96,227 10 96,227
UTILITY (LUH).....
07 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 42 608,469 42 608,469
IIIA REMAN........
08 AH-64 APACHE 150,931 150,931
BLOCK IIIA REMAN
ADV PROC (CY)...
09 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 0 0
IIIB NEW BUILD....
10 AH-64 APACHE 0 0
BLOCK IIIB NEW
BUILD ADV PROC
(CY)............
12 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 65 1,046,976 -19,984 65 1,026,992
MODEL (MYP).......
Transfer to PE [-19,984]
0203774A at Army
request.........
12 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 116,001 116,001
MODEL (MYP).......
14 CH-47 HELICOPTER... 28 801,650 28 801,650
15 CH-47 HELICOPTER 98,376 98,376
ADV PROC (CY)...
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
16 MQ-1 PAYLOAD--UAS.. 97,781 97,781
17 GUARDRAIL MODS 10,262 10,262
(MIP).............
18 MULTI SENSOR ABN 12,467 12,467
RECON (MIP).......
19 AH-64 MODS......... 53,559 53,559
20 CH-47 CARGO 149,764 149,764
HELICOPTER MODS
(MYP).............
21 UTILITY/CARGO 17,500 17,500
AIRPLANE MODS.....
22 UTILITY HELICOPTER 167 74,095 167 74,095
MODS..............
23 KIOWA MODS WARRIOR. 3 184,044 3 184,044
24 NETWORK AND MISSION 152,569 152,569
PLAN..............
25 COMMS, NAV 92,779 92,779
SURVEILLANCE......
26 GATM ROLLUP........ 65,613 65,613
27 RQ-7 UAV MODS...... 121,902 121,902
GROUND SUPPORT
AVIONICS
28 AIRCRAFT 47,610 47,610
SURVIVABILITY
EQUIPMENT.........
29 SURVIVABILITY CM... 5,700 5,700
30 CMWS............... 126,869 126,869
OTHER SUPPORT
31 AVIONICS SUPPORT 705 6,809 705 6,809
EQUIPMENT.........
32 COMMON GROUND 65,397 65,397
EQUIPMENT.........
33 AIRCREW INTEGRATED 45,841 45,841
SYSTEMS...........
34 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 79,692 79,692
35 INDUSTRIAL 1,615 1,615
FACILITIES........
36 LAUNCHER, 2.75 2,877 2,877
ROCKET............
AIRCRAFT 5,024,387 -19,984 5,004,403
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Total.............
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR
MISSILE SYSTEM
02 MSE MISSILE........ 56 540,401 56 540,401
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
03 HELLFIRE SYS 4,464 4,464
SUMMARY...........
ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
04 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) 449 110,510 449 110,510
SYSTEM SUMMARY....
05 TOW 2 SYSTEM 988 49,354 988 49,354
SUMMARY...........
06 TOW 2 SYSTEM 19,965 19,965
SUMMARY ADV PROC
(CY)............
07 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET 1,788 237,216 1,788 237,216
(GMLRS)...........
08 MLRS REDUCED RANGE 2,412 19,022 2,412 19,022
PRACTICE ROCKETS
(RRPR)............
MODIFICATIONS
11 PATRIOT MODS....... 256,438 256,438
12 STINGER MODS....... 37,252 37,252
13 ITAS/TOW MODS...... 20,000 20,000
14 MLRS MODS.......... 11,571 11,571
15 HIMARS 6,105 6,105
MODIFICATIONS.....
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
16 SPARES AND REPAIR 11,222 11,222
PARTS.............
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
17 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS 3,530 3,530
18 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,748 1,748
$5.0M (MISSILES)..
19 PRODUCTION BASE 5,285 5,285
SUPPORT...........
MISSILE 1,334,083 0 1,334,083
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Total.............
PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
01 STRYKER VEHICLE.... 374,100 374,100
MODIFICATION OF
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
02 STRYKER (MOD)...... 20,522 20,522
03 FIST VEHICLE (MOD). 29,965 29,965
04 BRADLEY PROGRAM 158,000 158,000
(MOD).............
05 HOWITZER, MED SP FT 4,769 4,769
155MM M109A6 (MOD)
06 PALADIN INTEGRATED 18 260,177 -40,700 18 219,477
MANAGEMENT (PIM)..
Transfer to PE [-40,700]
0604854A at Army
Request.........
07 IMPROVED RECOVERY 111,031 111,031
VEHICLE (M88A2
HERCULES).........
08 ASSAULT BRIDGE 2,500 2,500
(MOD).............
09 ASSAULT BREACHER 14 62,951 14 62,951
VEHICLE...........
10 M88 FOV MODS....... 28,469 28,469
11 JOINT ASSAULT 2,002 2,002
BRIDGE............
12 M1 ABRAMS TANK 178,100 178,100
(MOD).............
13 ABRAMS UPGRADE 0 0
PROGRAM...........
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
14 PRODUCTION BASE 1,544 1,544
SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV)
WEAPONS & OTHER
COMBAT VEHICLES
15 INTEGRATED AIR 1,424 69,147 -1,424 -69,147 0
BURST WEAPON
SYSTEM FAMILY.....
XM25 Counter [-1,424] [-69,147]
Defilade Target
Engagement......
18 MORTAR SYSTEMS..... 5,310 5,310
19 XM320 GRENADE 5,061 24,049 5,061 24,049
LAUNCHER MODULE
(GLM).............
21 CARBINE............ 41,897 70,846 -29,897 -49,592 12,000 21,254
Individual [-29,897] [-49,592]
Carbine early to
need............
23 COMMON REMOTELY 242 56,580 242 56,580
OPERATED WEAPONS
STATION...........
24 HANDGUN............ 300 300
MOD OF WEAPONS AND
OTHER COMBAT VEH
26 M777 MODS.......... 39,300 39,300
27 M4 CARBINE MODS.... 10,300 10,300
28 M2 50 CAL MACHINE 33,691 33,691
GUN MODS..........
29 M249 SAW MACHINE 7,608 7,608
GUN MODS..........
30 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE 2,719 2,719
GUN MODS..........
31 SNIPER RIFLES 7,017 7,017
MODIFICATIONS.....
32 M119 MODIFICATIONS. 18,707 18,707
33 M16 RIFLE MODS..... 2,136 2,136
34 MODIFICATIONS LESS 1,569 1,569
THAN $5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).............
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
35 ITEMS LESS THAN 2,024 2,024
$5.0M (WOCV-WTCV).
36 PRODUCTION BASE 10,108 10,108
SUPPORT (WOCV-
WTCV).............
37 INDUSTRIAL 459 459
PREPAREDNESS......
38 SMALL ARMS 1,267 1,267
EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER
ENH PROG).........
PROCUREMENT OF 1,597,267 -159,439 1,437,828
W&TCV, ARMY Total.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
AMMUNITION
2 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL 112,167 -25,000 87,167
TYPES.............
Program decrease [-25,000]
3 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL 58,571 -5,000 53,571
TYPES.............
Program decrease [-5,000]
4 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL 9,858 9,858
TYPES.............
5 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL 80,037 -25,000 55,037
TYPES.............
Program decrease [-25,000]
7 CTG, 25MM, ALL 16,496 -10,300 6,196
TYPES.............
Program decrease [-10,300]
8 CTG, 30MM, ALL 69,533 -19,500 50,033
TYPES.............
Program decrease [-19,500]
9 CTG, 40MM, ALL 55,781 55,781
TYPES.............
MORTAR AMMUNITION
10 60MM MORTAR, ALL 38,029 38,029
TYPES.............
11 81MM MORTAR, ALL 24,656 24,656
TYPES.............
12 120MM MORTAR, ALL 60,781 60,781
TYPES.............
TANK AMMUNITION
13 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 121,551 121,551
105MM AND 120MM,
ALL TYPES.........
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
14 ARTILLERY 39,825 39,825
CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
105MM, ALL TYPES..
15 ARTILLERY 37,902 37,902
PROJECTILE, 155MM,
ALL TYPES.........
16 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED 802 67,896 802 67,896
RANGE M982........
17 ARTILLERY 71,205 71,205
PROPELLANTS, FUZES
AND PRIMERS, ALL..
ROCKETS
20 SHOULDER LAUNCHED 1,012 1,012
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
21 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, 108,476 108,476
ALL TYPES.........
OTHER AMMUNITION
22 DEMOLITION 24,074 24,074
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
23 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 33,242 33,242
24 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES. 7,609 7,609
25 SIMULATORS, ALL 5,228 5,228
TYPES.............
MISCELLANEOUS
26 AMMO COMPONENTS, 16,700 16,700
ALL TYPES.........
27 NON-LETHAL 7,366 7,366
AMMUNITION, ALL
TYPES.............
28 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES.. 3,614 3,614
29 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 12,423 12,423
MILLION (AMMO)....
30 AMMUNITION PECULIAR 16,604 16,604
EQUIPMENT.........
31 FIRST DESTINATION 14,328 14,328
TRANSPORTATION
(AMMO)............
32 CLOSEOUT 108 108
LIABILITIES.......
PRODUCTION BASE
SUPPORT
33 PROVISION OF 242,324 242,324
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES........
34 CONVENTIONAL 179,605 179,605
MUNITIONS
DEMILITARIZATION..
35 ARMS INITIATIVE.... 3,436 3,436
PROCUREMENT OF 1,540,437 -84,800 1,455,637
AMMUNITION, ARMY
Total.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/ 25 4,000 25 4,000
DOLLY SETS........
2 SEMITRAILERS, 40 6,841 40 6,841
FLATBED:..........
3 FAMILY OF MEDIUM 837 223,910 837 223,910
TACTICAL VEH
(FMTV)............
4 FIRETRUCKS & 11,880 11,880
ASSOCIATED
FIREFIGHTING EQUIP
5 FAMILY OF HEAVY 220 14,731 220 14,731
TACTICAL VEHICLES
(FHTV)............
6 PLS ESP............ 74 44,252 74 44,252
9 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE 77 39,525 77 39,525
TACTICAL TRUCK EXT
SERV..............
10 HMMWV 0 0
RECAPITALIZATION
PROGRAM...........
11 TACTICAL WHEELED 746 51,258 746 51,258
VEHICLE PROTECTION
KITS..............
12 MODIFICATION OF IN 34 49,904 34 49,904
SVC EQUIP.........
13 MINE-RESISTANT 2,200 2,200
AMBUSH-PROTECTED
(MRAP) MODS.......
NON-TACTICAL
VEHICLES
14 HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN 400 400
15 PASSENGER CARRYING 716 716
VEHICLES..........
16 NONTACTICAL 5,619 5,619
VEHICLES, OTHER...
COMM--JOINT
COMMUNICATIONS
18 WIN-T--GROUND 2,139 973,477 2,139 973,477
FORCES TACTICAL
NETWORK...........
19 SIGNAL 14,120 14,120
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM...........
20 JOINT INCIDENT SITE 7,869 7,869
COMMUNICATIONS
CAPABILITY........
21 JCSE EQUIPMENT 5,296 5,296
(USREDCOM)........
COMM--SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
22 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE 31 147,212 31 147,212
WIDEBAND SATCOM
SYSTEMS...........
23 TRANSPORTABLE 7,998 7,998
TACTICAL COMMAND
COMMUNICATIONS....
24 SHF TERM........... 7,232 7,232
25 NAVSTAR GLOBAL 3,308 3,308
POSITIONING SYSTEM
(SPACE)...........
26 SMART-T (SPACE).... 13,992 13,992
28 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC-- 94 28,206 94 28,206
GBS...............
29 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 15 2,778 15 2,778
(TAC SAT).........
COMM--C3 SYSTEM
31 ARMY GLOBAL CMD & 17,590 17,590
CONTROL SYS
(AGCCS)...........
COMM--COMBAT
COMMUNICATIONS
32 ARMY DATA 786 786
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM (DATA
RADIO)............
33 JOINT TACTICAL 10,523 382,930 10,523 382,930
RADIO SYSTEM......
34 MID-TIER NETWORKING 130 19,200 130 19,200
VEHICULAR RADIO
(MNVR)............
35 RADIO TERMINAL SET, 1,438 1,438
MIDS LVT(2).......
36 SINCGARS FAMILY.... 9,856 9,856
37 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS-- 2,066 14,184 2,066 14,184
OPA2..............
38 TRACTOR DESK....... 6,271 6,271
40 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT 1,030 1,030
PROGRAM COMM/
ELECTRONICS.......
41 TACTICAL 15,967 31,868 15,967 31,868
COMMUNICATIONS AND
PROTECTIVE SYSTEM.
42 UNIFIED COMMAND 18,000 18,000
SUITE.............
44 RADIO, IMPROVED HF 1,166 1,166
(COTS) FAMILY.....
45 FAMILY OF MED COMM 22,867 22,867
FOR COMBAT
CASUALTY CARE.....
COMM--INTELLIGENCE
COMM
48 CI AUTOMATION 1,512 1,512
ARCHITECTURE......
49 ARMY CA/MISO GPF 323 61,096 323 61,096
EQUIPMENT.........
INFORMATION
SECURITY
50 TSEC--ARMY KEY MGT 13,890 13,890
SYS (AKMS)........
51 INFORMATION SYSTEM 1,133 23,245 1,133 23,245
SECURITY PROGRAM-
ISSP..............
52 BIOMETRICS 3,800 3,800
ENTERPRISE........
53 COMMUNICATIONS 877 24,711 877 24,711
SECURITY (COMSEC).
COMM--LONG HAUL
COMMUNICATIONS
55 BASE SUPPORT 43,395 43,395
COMMUNICATIONS....
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
57 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 104,577 104,577
58 DEFENSE MESSAGE 612 612
SYSTEM (DMS)......
59 EMERGENCY 39,000 39,000
MANAGEMENT
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM...........
60 INSTALLATION INFO 248,477 248,477
INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
PROGRAM...........
ELECT EQUIP--TACT
INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
64 JTT/CIBS-M......... 824 824
65 PROPHET GROUND..... 10 59,198 10 59,198
67 DCGS-A (MIP)....... 2,717 267,214 2,717 267,214
68 JOINT TACTICAL 5 9,899 5 9,899
GROUND STATION
(JTAGS)...........
69 TROJAN (MIP)....... 24,598 24,598
70 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 1,927 1,927
(INTEL SPT) (MIP).
71 CI HUMINT AUTO 6,169 6,169
REPRTING AND
COLL(CHARCS)......
72 MACHINE FOREIGN 2,924 2,924
LANGUAGE
TRANSLATION SYSTEM-
M.................
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
74 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER 18 40,735 18 40,735
MORTAR RADAR......
75 EW PLANNING & 13 13
MANAGEMENT TOOLS
(EWPMT)...........
76 ENEMY UAS.......... 2,800 2,800
79 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/ 1,237 1,237
SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURES...
80 CI MODERNIZATION... 1,399 1,399
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
82 SENTINEL MODS...... 86 47,983 86 47,983
83 SENSE THROUGH THE 142 142
WALL (STTW).......
84 NIGHT VISION 6,879 202,428 6,879 202,428
DEVICES...........
85 LONG RANGE ADVANCED 5,183 5,183
SCOUT SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEM............
86 NIGHT VISION, 14,074 14,074
THERMAL WPN SIGHT.
87 SMALL TACTICAL 1,491 22,300 1,491 22,300
OPTICAL RIFLE
MOUNTED MLRF......
89 GREEN LASER 1,016 1,016
INTERDICTION
SYSTEM (GLIS).....
90 INDIRECT FIRE 5 55,354 5 55,354
PROTECTION FAMILY
OF SYSTEMS........
91 ARTILLERY ACCURACY 800 800
EQUIP.............
92 PROFILER........... 3,027 3,027
93 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 1,185 1,185
(FIREFINDER
RADARS)...........
94 JOINT BATTLE 3,866 103,214 3,866 103,214
COMMAND--PLATFORM
(JBC-P)...........
96 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 167 26,037 167 26,037
(LLDR)............
97 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL 120 23,100 120 23,100
SYSTEM............
98 COUNTERFIRE RADARS. 19 312,727 19 312,727
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL C2
SYSTEMS
101 FIRE SUPPORT C2 574 43,228 574 43,228
FAMILY............
102 BATTLE COMMAND 167 14,446 167 14,446
SUSTAINMENT
SUPPORT SYSTEM....
103 FAAD C2............ 4,607 4,607
104 AIR & MSL DEFENSE 8 33,090 8 33,090
PLANNING & CONTROL
SYS...............
105 IAMD BATTLE COMMAND 21,200 21,200
SYSTEM............
107 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE 1,795 1,795
SUPPORT (LCSS)....
109 NETWORK MANAGEMENT 54,327 54,327
INITIALIZATION AND
SERVICE...........
110 MANEUVER CONTROL 2,959 59,171 2,959 59,171
SYSTEM (MCS)......
111 GLOBAL COMBAT 83,936 83,936
SUPPORT SYSTEM-
ARMY (GCSS-A).....
113 LOGISTICS 25,476 25,476
AUTOMATION........
114 RECONNAISSANCE AND 212 19,341 212 19,341
SURVEYING
INSTRUMENT SET....
ELECT EQUIP--
AUTOMATION
115 ARMY TRAINING 11,865 11,865
MODERNIZATION.....
116 AUTOMATED DATA 219,431 219,431
PROCESSING EQUIP..
117 GENERAL FUND 6,414 6,414
ENTERPRISE
BUSINESS SYSTEMS
FAM...............
118 HIGH PERF COMPUTING 62,683 62,683
MOD PGM (HPCMP)...
120 RESERVE COMPONENT 34,951 34,951
AUTOMATION SYS
(RCAS)............
121 ITEMS LESS THAN 7,440 7,440
$5.0M (A/V).......
122 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M 16 1,615 16 1,615
(SURVEYING
EQUIPMENT)........
123 PRODUCTION BASE 554 554
SUPPORT (C-E).....
124 BCT EMERGING 20,000 20,000
TECHNOLOGIES......
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
124A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 3,558 3,558
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
126 FAMILY OF NON- 762 762
LETHAL EQUIPMENT
(FNLE)............
127 BASE DEFENSE 3,759 20,630 3,759 20,630
SYSTEMS (BDS).....
128 CBRN DEFENSE....... 24,530 22,151 24,530 22,151
BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
130 TACTICAL BRIDGING.. 2 14,188 2 14,188
131 TACTICAL BRIDGE, 34 23,101 34 23,101
FLOAT-RIBBON......
132 COMMON BRIDGE 15,416 15,416
TRANSPORTER (CBT)
RECAP.............
ENGINEER (NON-
CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
134 GRND STANDOFF MINE 311 50,465 311 50,465
DETECTN SYSM
(GSTAMIDS)........
135 ROBOTIC COMBAT 6,490 6,490
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(RCSS)............
136 EOD ROBOTICS 1,563 1,563
SYSTEMS
RECAPITALIZATION..
137 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 6,774 20,921 6,774 20,921
DISPOSAL EQPMT
(EOD EQPMT).......
138 REMOTE DEMOLITION 100 100
SYSTEMS...........
139 < $5M, COUNTERMINE 70 2,271 70 2,271
EQUIPMENT.........
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
140 HEATERS AND ECU'S.. 464 7,269 464 7,269
141 LAUNDRIES, SHOWERS 200 200
AND LATRINES......
142 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT 1,468 1,468
143 PERSONNEL RECOVERY 31,530 26,526 31,530 26,526
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(PRSS)............
144 GROUND SOLDIER 5,547 81,680 5,547 81,680
SYSTEM............
147 FIELD FEEDING 217 28,096 217 28,096
EQUIPMENT.........
148 CARGO AERIAL DEL & 6,904 56,150 6,904 56,150
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
149 MORTUARY AFFAIRS 248 3,242 248 3,242
SYSTEMS...........
150 FAMILY OF ENGR 289 38,141 289 38,141
COMBAT AND
CONSTRUCTION SETS.
151 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M 210 5,859 210 5,859
(ENG SPT).........
PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
152 DISTRIBUTION 508 60,612 508 60,612
SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM
& WATER...........
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
153 COMBAT SUPPORT 3,258 22,042 3,258 22,042
MEDICAL...........
154 MEDEVAC MISSON 88 35,318 88 35,318
EQUIPMENT PACKAGE
(MEP).............
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
155 MOBILE MAINTENANCE 25 19,427 25 19,427
EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS.
156 ITEMS LESS THAN 347 3,860 347 3,860
$5.0M (MAINT EQ)..
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
157 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, 2,000 2,000
HVY, 6X4 (CCE)....
159 SCRAPERS, 52 36,078 52 36,078
EARTHMOVING.......
160 MISSION MODULES-- 13 9,721 13 9,721
ENGINEERING.......
162 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR 109 50,122 109 50,122
163 TRACTOR, FULL 84 28,828 84 28,828
TRACKED...........
164 ALL TERRAIN CRANES. 19 19,863 19 19,863
166 HIGH MOBILITY 34 23,465 34 23,465
ENGINEER EXCAVATOR
(HMEE)............
168 ENHANCED RAPID 109 13,590 109 13,590
AIRFIELD
CONSTRUCTION CAPAP
169 CONST EQUIP ESP.... 80 16,088 80 16,088
170 ITEMS LESS THAN 66 6,850 66 6,850
$5.0M (CONST
EQUIP)............
RAIL FLOAT
CONTAINERIZATION
EQUIPMENT
171 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP 38,007 38,007
172 ITEMS LESS THAN 10,605 10,605
$5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL)
GENERATORS
173 GENERATORS AND 5,239 129,437 5,239 129,437
ASSOCIATED EQUIP..
MATERIAL HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
174 ROUGH TERRAIN 1,250 1,250
CONTAINER HANDLER
(RTCH)............
175 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS 60 8,260 60 8,260
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
176 COMBAT TRAINING 309 121,710 309 121,710
CENTERS SUPPORT...
177 TRAINING DEVICES, 8,181 225,200 8,181 225,200
NONSYSTEM.........
178 CLOSE COMBAT 15 30,063 15 30,063
TACTICAL TRAINER..
179 AVIATION COMBINED 2 34,913 2 34,913
ARMS TACTICAL
TRAINER...........
180 GAMING TECHNOLOGY 9,955 9,955
IN SUPPORT OF ARMY
TRAINING..........
TEST MEASURE AND
DIG EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
181 CALIBRATION SETS 3 8,241 3 8,241
EQUIPMENT.........
182 INTEGRATED FAMILY 1,810 67,506 1,810 67,506
OF TEST EQUIPMENT
(IFTE)............
183 TEST EQUIPMENT 2,105 18,755 2,105 18,755
MODERNIZATION
(TEMOD)...........
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
184 M25 STABILIZED 647 5,110 647 5,110
BINOCULAR.........
185 RAPID EQUIPPING 5,110 5,110
SOLDIER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.........
186 PHYSICAL SECURITY 62,904 62,904
SYSTEMS (OPA3)....
187 BASE LEVEL COMMON 1,427 1,427
EQUIPMENT.........
188 MODIFICATION OF IN- 1,936 96,661 1,936 96,661
SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA-
3)................
189 PRODUCTION BASE 2,450 2,450
SUPPORT (OTH).....
190 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT 69 11,593 69 11,593
FOR USER TESTING..
191 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS 1,597 8,948 1,597 8,948
OPA3..............
192 TRACTOR YARD....... 8,000 8,000
OPA2
195 INITIAL SPARES--C&E 15 59,700 15 59,700
OTHER PROCUREMENT, 6,465,218 0 6,465,218
ARMY Total........
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
1 EA-18G............. 21 2,001,787 21 2,001,787
3 F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER) 206,551 206,551
HORNET............
5 JOINT STRIKE 4 1,135,444 4 1,135,444
FIGHTER CV........
6 JOINT STRIKE 94,766 94,766
FIGHTER CV--ADV
PROC (CY).......
7 JSF STOVL.......... 6 1,267,260 6 1,267,260
8 JSF STOVL--ADV 103,195 103,195
PROC (CY).......
9 V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT). 18 1,432,573 18 1,432,573
10 V-22 (MEDIUM 55,196 55,196
LIFT)--ADV PROC
(CY)............
11 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/ 25 749,962 25 749,962
AH-1Z)............
12 H-1 UPGRADES (UH- 71,000 71,000
1Y/AH-1Z)--ADV
PROC (CY).......
13 MH-60S (MYP)....... 18 383,831 18 383,831
14 MH-60S (MYP)-- 37,278 37,278
ADV PROC (CY)...
15 MH-60R (MYP)....... 19 599,237 19 599,237
16 MH-60R (MYP)-- 231,834 231,834
ADV PROC (CY)...
17 P-8A POSEIDON...... 16 3,189,989 16 3,189,989
18 P-8A POSEIDON-- 313,160 313,160
ADV PROC (CY)...
19 E-2D ADV HAWKEYE... 5 997,107 5 997,107
20 E-2D ADV 266,542 266,542
HAWKEYE--ADV
PROC (CY).......
TRAINER AIRCRAFT
21 JPATS.............. 29 249,080 29 249,080
OTHER AIRCRAFT
22 KC-130J............ 2 134,358 2 134,358
23 KC-130J--ADV 32,288 32,288
PROC (CY).......
25 RQ-4 UAV--ADV PROC 52,002 52,002
(CY)..............
26 MQ-8 UAV........... 1 60,980 1 60,980
28 OTHER SUPPORT 1 14,958 1 14,958
AIRCRAFT..........
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
29 EA-6 SERIES........ 18,577 18,577
30 AEA SYSTEMS........ 48,502 48,502
31 AV-8 SERIES........ 41,575 41,575
32 ADVERSARY.......... 2,992 2,992
33 F-18 SERIES........ 875,371 875,371
34 H-46 SERIES........ 2,127 2,127
36 H-53 SERIES........ 67,675 67,675
37 SH-60 SERIES....... 135,054 135,054
38 H-1 SERIES......... 41,706 41,706
39 EP-3 SERIES........ 55,903 22,000 77,903
12th aircraft to [8,000]
Spiral 3........
Sensor [14,000]
obsolescence....
40 P-3 SERIES......... 37,436 37,436
41 E-2 SERIES......... 31,044 31,044
42 TRAINER A/C SERIES. 43,720 43,720
43 C-2A............... 902 902
44 C-130 SERIES....... 47,587 47,587
45 FEWSG.............. 665 665
46 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C 14,587 14,587
SERIES............
47 E-6 SERIES......... 189,312 189,312
48 EXECUTIVE 85,537 85,537
HELICOPTERS SERIES
49 SPECIAL PROJECT 3,684 10,000 13,684
AIRCRAFT..........
Program office [5,000]
sustainment.....
Sensor [5,000]
obsolescence....
50 T-45 SERIES........ 98,128 98,128
51 POWER PLANT CHANGES 22,999 22,999
52 JPATS SERIES....... 1,576 1,576
53 AVIATION LIFE 6,267 6,267
SUPPORT MODS......
54 COMMON ECM 141,685 141,685
EQUIPMENT.........
55 COMMON AVIONICS 120,660 120,660
CHANGES...........
56 COMMON DEFENSIVE 3,554 3,554
WEAPON SYSTEM.....
57 ID SYSTEMS......... 41,800 41,800
58 P-8 SERIES......... 9,485 9,485
59 MAGTF EW FOR 14,431 14,431
AVIATION..........
60 MQ-8 SERIES........ 1,001 1,001
61 RQ-7 SERIES........ 26,433 26,433
62 V-22 (TILT/ROTOR 160,834 160,834
ACFT) OSPREY......
63 F-35 STOVL SERIES.. 147,130 147,130
64 F-35 CV SERIES..... 31,100 31,100
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
65 SPARES AND REPAIR 1,142,461 1,142,461
PARTS.............
66 COMMON GROUND 410,044 410,044
EQUIPMENT.........
67 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL 27,450 27,450
FACILITIES........
68 WAR CONSUMABLES.... 28,930 28,930
69 OTHER PRODUCTION 5,268 5,268
CHARGES...........
70 SPECIAL SUPPORT 60,306 60,306
EQUIPMENT.........
71 FIRST DESTINATION 1,775 1,775
TRANSPORTATION....
AIRCRAFT 17,927,651 32,000 17,959,651
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Total.............
WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
1 TRIDENT II MODS.... 1,140,865 1,140,865
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL 7,617 7,617
FACILITIES........
STRATEGIC MISSILES
3 TOMAHAWK........... 196 312,456 196 312,456
TACTICAL MISSILES
4 AMRAAM............. 54 95,413 54 95,413
5 SIDEWINDER......... 225 117,208 225 117,208
6 JSOW............... 328 136,794 328 136,794
7 STANDARD MISSILE... 81 367,985 81 367,985
8 RAM................ 66 67,596 66 67,596
9 HELLFIRE........... 363 33,916 363 33,916
11 STAND OFF PRECISION 50 6,278 50 6,278
GUIDED MUNITIONS
(SOPGM)...........
12 AERIAL TARGETS..... 41,799 41,799
13 OTHER MISSILE 3,538 3,538
SUPPORT...........
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
14 ESSM............... 53 76,749 53 76,749
15 HARM MODS.......... 143 111,902 143 111,902
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
16 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL 1,138 1,138
FACILITIES........
17 FLEET SATELLITE 23,014 23,014
COMM FOLLOW-ON....
ORDNANCE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
18 ORDNANCE SUPPORT 84,318 84,318
EQUIPMENT.........
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
19 SSTD............... 3,978 3,978
20 ASW TARGETS........ 8,031 8,031
MOD OF TORPEDOES
AND RELATED EQUIP
21 MK-54 TORPEDO MODS. 150 125,898 150 125,898
22 MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP 108 53,203 108 53,203
MODS..............
23 QUICKSTRIKE MINE... 7,800 7,800
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
24 TORPEDO SUPPORT 59,730 59,730
EQUIPMENT.........
25 ASW RANGE SUPPORT.. 4,222 4,222
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
26 FIRST DESTINATION 3,963 3,963
TRANSPORTATION....
GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
27 SMALL ARMS AND 12,513 12,513
WEAPONS...........
MODIFICATION OF
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
28 CIWS MODS.......... 56,308 6,400 62,708
Additional RMA [6,400]
kits............
29 COAST GUARD WEAPONS 10,727 10,727
30 GUN MOUNT MODS..... 72,901 72,901
31 CRUISER 1,943 1,943
MODERNIZATION
WEAPONS...........
32 AIRBORNE MINE 19,758 19,758
NEUTRALIZATION
SYSTEMS...........
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
34 SPARES AND REPAIR 52,632 52,632
PARTS.............
WEAPONS 3,122,193 6,400 3,128,593
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Total.............
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
1 GENERAL PURPOSE 37,703 37,703
BOMBS.............
2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, 65,411 65,411
ALL TYPES.........
3 MACHINE GUN 20,284 20,284
AMMUNITION........
4 PRACTICE BOMBS..... 37,870 37,870
5 CARTRIDGES & CART 53,764 53,764
ACTUATED DEVICES..
6 AIR EXPENDABLE 67,194 67,194
COUNTERMEASURES...
7 JATOS.............. 2,749 2,749
8 LRLAP 6" LONG RANGE 3,906 3,906
ATTACK PROJECTILE.
9 5 INCH/54 GUN 24,151 24,151
AMMUNITION........
10 INTERMEDIATE 33,080 33,080
CALIBER GUN
AMMUNITION........
11 OTHER SHIP GUN 40,398 40,398
AMMUNITION........
12 SMALL ARMS & 61,219 61,219
LANDING PARTY AMMO
13 PYROTECHNIC AND 10,637 10,637
DEMOLITION........
14 AMMUNITION LESS 4,578 4,578
THAN $5 MILLION...
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
15 SMALL ARMS 26,297 26,297
AMMUNITION........
16 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL 6,088 6,088
TYPES.............
17 40 MM, ALL TYPES... 7,644 7,644
18 60MM, ALL TYPES.... 3,349 3,349
20 120MM, ALL TYPES... 13,361 13,361
22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 2,149 2,149
23 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES. 27,465 27,465
26 FUZE, ALL TYPES.... 26,366 26,366
28 AMMO MODERNIZATION. 8,403 8,403
29 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 5,201 5,201
MILLION...........
PROCUREMENT OF 589,267 0 589,267
AMMO, NAVY & MC
Total.............
SHIPBUILDING AND
CONVERSION, NAVY
OTHER WARSHIPS
1 CARRIER REPLACEMENT 944,866 944,866
PROGRAM...........
3 VIRGINIA CLASS 2 2,930,704 2 2,930,704
SUBMARINE.........
4 VIRGINIA CLASS 2,354,612 2,354,612
SUBMARINE ADV
PROC (CY).......
5 CVN REFUELING 1,705,424 1,705,424
OVERHAULS.........
6 CVN REFUELING 245,793 245,793
OVERHAULS ADV
PROC (CY).......
7 DDG 1000........... 231,694 231,694
8 DDG-51............. 1 1,615,564 1 1,615,564
9 DDG-51 ADV PROC 388,551 388,551
(CY)............
10 LITTORAL COMBAT 4 1,793,014 4 1,793,014
SHIP..............
AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
12 AFLOAT FORWARD 1 524,000 55,300 1 579,300
STAGING BASE......
Navy requested [55,300]
adjustment......
14 JOINT HIGH SPEED 2,732 2,732
VESSEL............
AUXILIARIES, CRAFT
AND PRIOR YR
PROGRAM COST
16 MOORED TRAINING 183,900 183,900
SHIP..............
17 OUTFITTING......... 450,163 450,163
19 LCAC SLEP.......... 4 80,987 4 80,987
20 COMPLETION OF PY 625,800 100,000 725,800
SHIPBUILDING
PROGRAMS..........
Help buy 3rd DDG- [100,000]
51 in FY 13.....
SHIPBUILDING AND 14,077,804 155,300 14,233,104
CONVERSION, NAVY
Total.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
SHIP PROPULSION
EQUIPMENT
1 LM-2500 GAS TURBINE 10,180 10,180
2 ALLISON 501K GAS 5,536 5,536
TURBINE...........
3 HYBRID ELECTRIC 16,956 16,956
DRIVE (HED).......
GENERATORS
4 SURFACE COMBATANT 19,782 19,782
HM&E..............
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT
5 OTHER NAVIGATION 39,509 39,509
EQUIPMENT.........
PERISCOPES
6 SUB PERISCOPES & 52,515 52,515
IMAGING EQUIP.....
OTHER SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT
7 DDG MOD............ 285,994 285,994
8 FIREFIGHTING 14,389 14,389
EQUIPMENT.........
9 COMMAND AND CONTROL 2,436 2,436
SWITCHBOARD.......
10 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE.... 12,700 12,700
11 LCC 19/20 EXTENDED 40,329 40,329
SERVICE LIFE
PROGRAM...........
12 POLLUTION CONTROL 19,603 19,603
EQUIPMENT.........
13 SUBMARINE SUPPORT 8,678 8,678
EQUIPMENT.........
14 VIRGINIA CLASS 74,209 74,209
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
15 LCS CLASS SUPPORT 47,078 47,078
EQUIPMENT.........
16 SUBMARINE BATTERIES 37,000 37,000
17 LPD CLASS SUPPORT 25,053 25,053
EQUIPMENT.........
18 STRATEGIC PLATFORM 12,986 12,986
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
19 DSSP EQUIPMENT..... 2,455 2,455
20 CG MODERNIZATION... 10,539 10,539
21 LCAC............... 14,431 14,431
22 UNDERWATER EOD 36,700 36,700
PROGRAMS..........
23 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 119,902 119,902
MILLION...........
24 CHEMICAL WARFARE 3,678 3,678
DETECTORS.........
25 SUBMARINE LIFE 8,292 8,292
SUPPORT SYSTEM....
REACTOR PLANT
EQUIPMENT
27 REACTOR COMPONENTS. 286,744 286,744
OCEAN ENGINEERING
28 DIVING AND SALVAGE 8,780 8,780
EQUIPMENT.........
SMALL BOATS
29 STANDARD BOATS..... 36,452 36,452
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
30 OTHER SHIPS 36,145 36,145
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
EQUIPMENT
31 OPERATING FORCES 69,368 69,368
IPE...............
OTHER SHIP SUPPORT
32 NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS 106,328 106,328
33 LCS COMMON MISSION 45,966 45,966
MODULES EQUIPMENT.
34 LCS MCM MISSION 59,885 59,885
MODULES...........
35 LCS SUW MISSION 37,168 37,168
MODULES...........
LOGISTIC SUPPORT
36 LSD MIDLIFE........ 77,974 77,974
SHIP SONARS
38 SPQ-9B RADAR....... 27,934 27,934
39 AN/SQQ-89 SURF ASW 83,231 83,231
COMBAT SYSTEM.....
40 SSN ACOUSTICS...... 199,438 199,438
41 UNDERSEA WARFARE 9,394 9,394
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
42 SONAR SWITCHES AND 12,953 12,953
TRANSDUCERS.......
43 ELECTRONIC WARFARE 8,958 8,958
MILDEC............
ASW ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
44 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 24,077 24,077
WARFARE SYSTEM....
45 SSTD............... 11,925 11,925
46 FIXED SURVEILLANCE 94,338 94,338
SYSTEM............
47 SURTASS............ 9,680 9,680
48 MARITIME PATROL AND 18,130 18,130
RECONNSAISANCE
FORCE.............
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
EQUIPMENT
49 AN/SLQ-32.......... 203,375 203,375
RECONNAISSANCE
EQUIPMENT
50 SHIPBOARD IW 123,656 123,656
EXPLOIT...........
51 AUTOMATED 896 896
IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM (AIS)......
SUBMARINE
SURVEILLANCE
EQUIPMENT
52 SUBMARINE SUPPORT 49,475 49,475
EQUIPMENT PROG....
OTHER SHIP
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
53 COOPERATIVE 34,692 34,692
ENGAGEMENT
CAPABILITY........
54 TRUSTED INFORMATION 396 396
SYSTEM (TIS)......
55 NAVAL TACTICAL 15,703 15,703
COMMAND SUPPORT
SYSTEM (NTCSS)....
56 ATDLS.............. 3,836 3,836
57 NAVY COMMAND AND 7,201 7,201
CONTROL SYSTEM
(NCCS)............
58 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM 54,400 54,400
REPLACEMENT.......
59 SHALLOW WATER MCM.. 8,548 8,548
60 NAVSTAR GPS 11,765 11,765
RECEIVERS (SPACE).
61 AMERICAN FORCES 6,483 6,483
RADIO AND TV
SERVICE...........
62 STRATEGIC PLATFORM 7,631 7,631
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
63 OTHER TRAINING 53,644 53,644
EQUIPMENT.........
AVIATION ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
64 MATCALS............ 7,461 7,461
65 SHIPBOARD AIR 9,140 9,140
TRAFFIC CONTROL...
66 AUTOMATIC CARRIER 20,798 20,798
LANDING SYSTEM....
67 NATIONAL AIR SPACE 19,754 19,754
SYSTEM............
68 FLEET AIR TRAFFIC 8,909 8,909
CONTROL SYSTEMS...
69 LANDING SYSTEMS.... 13,554 13,554
70 ID SYSTEMS......... 38,934 38,934
71 NAVAL MISSION 14,131 14,131
PLANNING SYSTEMS..
OTHER SHORE
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
72 DEPLOYABLE JOINT 3,249 3,249
COMMAND & CONTROL.
73 MARITIME INTEGRATED 11,646 11,646
BROADCAST SYSTEM..
74 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I 18,189 18,189
SYSTEMS...........
75 DCGS-N............. 17,350 17,350
76 CANES.............. 340,567 340,567
77 RADIAC............. 9,835 9,835
78 CANES-INTELL....... 59,652 59,652
79 GPETE.............. 6,253 6,253
80 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM 4,963 4,963
TEST FACILITY.....
81 EMI CONTROL 4,664 4,664
INSTRUMENTATION...
82 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 66,889 66,889
MILLION...........
SHIPBOARD
COMMUNICATIONS
84 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS 23,877 23,877
AUTOMATION........
86 COMMUNICATIONS 28,001 28,001
ITEMS UNDER $5M...
SUBMARINE
COMMUNICATIONS
87 SUBMARINE BROADCAST 7,856 7,856
SUPPORT...........
88 SUBMARINE 74,376 74,376
COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT.........
SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
89 SATELLITE 27,381 27,381
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS...........
90 NAVY MULTIBAND 215,952 215,952
TERMINAL (NMT)....
SHORE
COMMUNICATIONS
91 JCS COMMUNICATIONS 4,463 4,463
EQUIPMENT.........
92 ELECTRICAL POWER 778 778
SYSTEMS...........
CRYPTOGRAPHIC
EQUIPMENT
94 INFO SYSTEMS 133,530 133,530
SECURITY PROGRAM
(ISSP)............
95 MIO INTEL 1,000 1,000
EXPLOITATION TEAM.
96 CRYPTOLOGIC 12,251 12,251
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIP.............
OTHER ELECTRONIC
SUPPORT
97 COAST GUARD 2,893 2,893
EQUIPMENT.........
SONOBUOYS
99 SONOBUOYS--ALL 179,927 179,927
TYPES.............
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
100 WEAPONS RANGE 55,279 55,279
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
101 EXPEDITIONARY 8,792 8,792
AIRFIELDS.........
102 AIRCRAFT REARMING 11,364 11,364
EQUIPMENT.........
103 AIRCRAFT LAUNCH & 59,502 59,502
RECOVERY EQUIPMENT
104 METEOROLOGICAL 19,118 19,118
EQUIPMENT.........
105 DCRS/DPL........... 1,425 1,425
106 AVIATION LIFE 29,670 29,670
SUPPORT...........
107 AIRBORNE MINE 101,554 101,554
COUNTERMEASURES...
108 LAMPS MK III 18,293 18,293
SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT.........
109 PORTABLE ELECTRONIC 7,969 7,969
MAINTENANCE AIDS..
110 OTHER AVIATION 5,215 5,215
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
111 AUTONOMIC LOGISTICS 4,827 4,827
INFORMATION SYSTEM
(ALIS)............
SHIP GUN SYSTEM
EQUIPMENT
112 NAVAL FIRES CONTROL 1,188 1,188
SYSTEM............
113 GUN FIRE CONTROL 4,447 4,447
EQUIPMENT.........
SHIP MISSILE
SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
114 NATO SEASPARROW.... 58,368 58,368
115 RAM GMLS........... 491 491
116 SHIP SELF DEFENSE 51,858 51,858
SYSTEM............
117 AEGIS SUPPORT 59,757 59,757
EQUIPMENT.........
118 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT 71,559 71,559
EQUIPMENT.........
119 VERTICAL LAUNCH 626 626
SYSTEMS...........
120 MARITIME INTEGRATED 2,779 2,779
PLANNING SYSTEM-
MIPS..............
FBM SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
121 STRATEGIC MISSILE 224,484 224,484
SYSTEMS EQUIP.....
ASW SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
122 SSN COMBAT CONTROL 85,678 85,678
SYSTEMS...........
123 SUBMARINE ASW 3,913 3,913
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
124 SURFACE ASW SUPPORT 3,909 3,909
EQUIPMENT.........
125 ASW RANGE SUPPORT 28,694 28,694
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER ORDNANCE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
126 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 46,586 46,586
DISPOSAL EQUIP....
127 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 11,933 11,933
MILLION...........
OTHER EXPENDABLE
ORDNANCE
128 ANTI-SHIP MISSILE 62,361 62,361
DECOY SYSTEM......
129 SURFACE TRAINING 41,813 41,813
DEVICE MODS.......
130 SUBMARINE TRAINING 26,672 26,672
DEVICE MODS.......
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
131 PASSENGER CARRYING 5,600 5,600
VEHICLES..........
132 GENERAL PURPOSE 3,717 3,717
TRUCKS............
133 CONSTRUCTION & 10,881 10,881
MAINTENANCE EQUIP.
134 FIRE FIGHTING 14,748 14,748
EQUIPMENT.........
135 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 5,540 5,540
136 AMPHIBIOUS 5,741 5,741
EQUIPMENT.........
137 POLLUTION CONTROL 3,852 3,852
EQUIPMENT.........
138 ITEMS UNDER $5 25,757 25,757
MILLION...........
139 PHYSICAL SECURITY 1,182 1,182
VEHICLES..........
SUPPLY SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
140 MATERIALS HANDLING 14,250 14,250
EQUIPMENT.........
141 OTHER SUPPLY 6,401 6,401
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
142 FIRST DESTINATION 5,718 5,718
TRANSPORTATION....
143 SPECIAL PURPOSE 22,597 22,597
SUPPLY SYSTEMS....
TRAINING DEVICES
144 TRAINING SUPPORT 22,527 22,527
EQUIPMENT.........
COMMAND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
145 COMMAND SUPPORT 50,428 50,428
EQUIPMENT.........
146 EDUCATION SUPPORT 2,292 2,292
EQUIPMENT.........
147 MEDICAL SUPPORT 4,925 4,925
EQUIPMENT.........
149 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT 3,202 3,202
EQUIPMENT.........
151 OPERATING FORCES 24,294 24,294
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
152 C4ISR EQUIPMENT.... 4,287 4,287
153 ENVIRONMENTAL 18,276 18,276
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
154 PHYSICAL SECURITY 134,495 134,495
EQUIPMENT.........
155 ENTERPRISE 324,327 324,327
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
156A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 12,140 12,140
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
157 SPARES AND REPAIR 317,234 317,234
PARTS.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT, 6,310,257 0 6,310,257
NAVY Total........
PROCUREMENT, MARINE
CORPS
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
01 AAV7A1 PIP......... 32,360 32,360
02 LAV PIP............ 6,003 6,003
ARTILLERY AND OTHER
WEAPONS
03 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE 589 589
SUPPORT SYSTEM....
04 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT 3,655 3,655
TOWED HOWITZER....
05 HIGH MOBILITY 5,467 5,467
ARTILLERY ROCKET
SYSTEM............
06 WEAPONS AND COMBAT 20,354 20,354
VEHICLES UNDER $5
MILLION...........
OTHER SUPPORT
07 MODIFICATION KITS.. 38,446 38,446
08 WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT 4,734 4,734
PROGRAM...........
GUIDED MISSILES
09 GROUND BASED AIR 15,713 15,713
DEFENSE...........
10 JAVELIN............ 219 36,175 219 36,175
12 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS 1,136 1,136
SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-
H)................
OTHER SUPPORT
13 MODIFICATION KITS.. 33,976 33,976
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEMS
14 UNIT OPERATIONS 16,273 16,273
CENTER............
REPAIR AND TEST
EQUIPMENT
15 REPAIR AND TEST 41,063 41,063
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
16 COMBAT SUPPORT 2,930 2,930
SYSTEM............
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
18 ITEMS UNDER $5 1,637 1,637
MILLION (COMM &
ELEC).............
19 AIR OPERATIONS C2 18,394 18,394
SYSTEMS...........
RADAR + EQUIPMENT
(NON-TEL)
20 RADAR SYSTEMS...... 114,051 114,051
21 RQ-21 UAS.......... 25 66,612 25 66,612
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
22 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM 3,749 3,749
23 INTELLIGENCE 75,979 75,979
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
26 RQ-11 UAV.......... 1,653 1,653
27 DCGS-MC............ 9,494 9,494
OTHER COMM/ELEC
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
28 NIGHT VISION 6,171 6,171
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER SUPPORT (NON-
TEL)
29 COMMON COMPUTER 121,955 121,955
RESOURCES.........
30 COMMAND POST 83,294 83,294
SYSTEMS...........
31 RADIO SYSTEMS...... 74,718 74,718
32 COMM SWITCHING & 47,613 47,613
CONTROL SYSTEMS...
33 COMM & ELEC 19,573 19,573
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUPPORT...........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
33A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 5,659 5,659
ADMINISTRATIVE
VEHICLES
34 COMMERCIAL 1,039 1,039
PASSENGER VEHICLES
35 COMMERCIAL CARGO 31,050 31,050
VEHICLES..........
TACTICAL VEHICLES
36 5/4T TRUCK HMMWV 36,333 36,333
(MYP).............
37 MOTOR TRANSPORT 3,137 3,137
MODIFICATIONS.....
40 FAMILY OF TACTICAL 27,385 27,385
TRAILERS..........
OTHER SUPPORT
41 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 7,016 7,016
MILLION...........
ENGINEER AND OTHER
EQUIPMENT
42 ENVIRONMENTAL 14,377 14,377
CONTROL EQUIP
ASSORT............
43 BULK LIQUID 24,864 24,864
EQUIPMENT.........
44 TACTICAL FUEL 21,592 21,592
SYSTEMS...........
45 POWER EQUIPMENT 61,353 61,353
ASSORTED..........
46 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT 4,827 4,827
EQUIPMENT.........
47 EOD SYSTEMS........ 40,011 40,011
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
48 PHYSICAL SECURITY 16,809 16,809
EQUIPMENT.........
49 GARRISON MOBILE 3,408 3,408
ENGINEER EQUIPMENT
(GMEE)............
50 MATERIAL HANDLING 48,549 48,549
EQUIP.............
51 FIRST DESTINATION 190 190
TRANSPORTATION....
GENERAL PROPERTY
52 FIELD MEDICAL 23,129 23,129
EQUIPMENT.........
53 TRAINING DEVICES... 8,346 8,346
54 CONTAINER FAMILY... 1,857 1,857
55 FAMILY OF 36,198 36,198
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT.........
56 RAPID DEPLOYABLE 2,390 2,390
KITCHEN...........
OTHER SUPPORT
57 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 6,525 6,525
MILLION...........
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
58 SPARES AND REPAIR 13,700 13,700
PARTS.............
PROCUREMENT, MARINE 1,343,511 0 1,343,511
CORPS Total.......
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
TACTICAL FORCES
1 F-35............... 19 3,060,770 19 3,060,770
2 F-35--ADV PROC 363,783 363,783
(CY)............
OTHER AIRLIFT
5 C-130J............. 6 537,517 6 537,517
6 C-130J--ADV PROC 162,000 162,000
(CY)............
7 HC-130J............ 1 132,121 1 132,121
8 HC-130J--ADV 88,000 88,000
PROC (CY).......
9 MC-130J............ 4 389,434 4 389,434
10 MC-130J--ADV 104,000 104,000
PROC (CY).......
HELICOPTERS
15 CV-22 (MYP)........ 3 230,798 3 230,798
MISSION SUPPORT
AIRCRAFT
17 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/ 6 2,541 6 2,541
C.................
OTHER AIRCRAFT
20 TARGET DRONES...... 41 138,669 41 138,669
22 AC-130J............ 5 470,019 5 470,019
24 RQ-4............... 27,000 27,000
27 MQ-9............... 12 272,217 -30,000 12 242,217
Prior year [-30,000]
savings.........
28 RQ-4 BLOCK 40 PROC. 1,747 1,747
STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
29 B-2A............... 20,019 20,019
30 B-1B............... 132,222 132,222
31 B-52............... 111,002 111,002
32 LARGE AIRCRAFT 27,197 27,197
INFRARED
COUNTERMEASURES...
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
33 A-10............... 47,598 47,598
34 F-15............... 354,624 354,624
35 F-16............... 11,794 11,794
36 F-22A.............. 285,830 285,830
37 F-35 MODIFICATIONS. 157,777 157,777
AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
38 C-5................ 2,456 2,456
39 C-5M............... 1,021,967 1,021,967
42 C-17A.............. 143,197 143,197
43 C-21............... 103 103
44 C-32A.............. 9,780 9,780
45 C-37A.............. 452 452
TRAINER AIRCRAFT
47 GLIDER MODS........ 128 128
48 T-6................ 6,427 6,427
49 T-1................ 277 277
50 T-38............... 28,686 28,686
OTHER AIRCRAFT
52 U-2 MODS........... 45,591 45,591
53 KC-10A (ATCA)...... 70,918 70,918
54 C-12............... 1,876 1,876
55 MC-12W............. 5,000 5,000
56 C-20 MODS.......... 192 192
57 VC-25A MOD......... 263 263
58 C-40............... 6,119 6,119
59 C-130.............. 58,577 47,300 105,877
C-130 avionics [47,300]
upgrades........
61 C-130J MODS........ 10,475 10,475
62 C-135.............. 46,556 46,556
63 COMPASS CALL MODS.. 34,494 34,494
64 RC-135............. 171,813 171,813
65 E-3................ 197,087 197,087
66 E-4................ 14,304 14,304
67 E-8................ 57,472 57,472
68 H-1................ 6,627 6,627
69 H-60............... 27,654 27,654
70 RQ-4 MODS.......... 9,313 9,313
71 HC/MC-130 16,300 16,300
MODIFICATIONS.....
72 OTHER AIRCRAFT..... 6,948 6,948
73 MQ-1 MODS.......... 9,734 9,734
74 MQ-9 MODS.......... 102,970 -34,500 68,470
Lynx radar [-34,500]
reduction.......
76 RQ-4 GSRA/CSRA MODS 30,000 30,000
77 CV-22 MODS......... 23,310 23,310
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
78 INITIAL SPARES/ 463,285 463,285
REPAIR PARTS......
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
79 AIRCRAFT 49,140 49,140
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
POST PRODUCTION
SUPPORT
81 B-1................ 3,683 3,683
83 B-2A............... 43,786 43,786
84 B-52............... 7,000 7,000
87 C-17A.............. 81,952 81,952
89 C-135.............. 8,597 8,597
90 F-15............... 2,403 2,403
91 F-16............... 3,455 3,455
92 F-22A.............. 5,911 5,911
INDUSTRIAL
PREPAREDNESS
94 INDUSTRIAL 21,148 21,148
RESPONSIVENESS....
WAR CONSUMABLES
95 WAR CONSUMABLES.... 94,947 94,947
OTHER PRODUCTION
CHARGES
96 OTHER PRODUCTION 1,242,004 1,242,004
CHARGES...........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
96A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 75,845 75,845
AIRCRAFT 11,398,901 -17,200 11,381,701
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE Total.......
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
MISSILE REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT--BALLIST
IC
1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT 39,104 39,104
EQ-BALLISTIC......
TACTICAL
2 JASSM.............. 183 291,151 183 291,151
3 SIDEWINDER (AIM-9X) 225 119,904 225 119,904
4 AMRAAM............. 199 340,015 199 340,015
5 PREDATOR HELLFIRE 413 48,548 413 48,548
MISSILE...........
6 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 144 42,347 144 42,347
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
7 INDUSTR'L 752 752
PREPAREDNS/POL
PREVENTION........
CLASS IV
9 MM III 21,635 21,635
MODIFICATIONS.....
10 AGM-65D MAVERICK... 276 276
11 AGM-88A HARM....... 580 580
12 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE 6,888 6,888
MISSILE (ALCM)....
13 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 5,000 5,000
MISSILE SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
14 INITIAL SPARES/ 72,080 72,080
REPAIR PARTS......
SPACE PROGRAMS
15 ADVANCED EHF....... 379,586 379,586
16 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER 38,398 38,398
SATELLITES(SPACE).
17 GPS III SPACE 2 486,047 2 486,047
SEGMENT...........
17 GPS III SPACE -82,616 -82,616
SEGMENT...........
18 GPS III SPACE 74,167 74,167
SEGMENT...........
19 SPACEBORNE EQUIP 5,244 5,244
(COMSEC)..........
20 GLOBAL POSITIONING 55,997 55,997
(SPACE)...........
21 DEF METEOROLOGICAL 95,673 95,673
SAT PROG(SPACE)...
22 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE 5 1,852,900 5 1,852,900
LAUNCH VEH(SPACE).
23 SBIR HIGH (SPACE).. 583,192 583,192
SPECIAL PROGRAMS
29 SPECIAL UPDATE 36,716 36,716
PROGRAMS..........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
29A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 829,702 829,702
MISSILE 5,343,286 0 5,343,286
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE Total.......
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
ROCKETS
1 ROCKETS............ 15,735 15,735
CARTRIDGES
2 CARTRIDGES......... 129,921 129,921
BOMBS
3 PRACTICE BOMBS..... 30,840 30,840
4 GENERAL PURPOSE 187,397 187,397
BOMBS.............
5 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 6,965 188,510 6,965 188,510
MUNITION..........
OTHER ITEMS
6 CAD/PAD............ 35,837 35,837
7 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 7,531 7,531
DISPOSAL (EOD)....
8 SPARES AND REPAIR 499 499
PARTS.............
9 MODIFICATIONS...... 480 480
10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 9,765 9,765
MILLION...........
FLARES
11 FLARES............. 55,864 55,864
FUZES
13 FUZES.............. 76,037 76,037
SMALL ARMS
14 SMALL ARMS......... 21,026 21,026
PROCUREMENT OF 759,442 0 759,442
AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE Total.......
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
PASSENGER CARRYING
VEHICLES
1 PASSENGER CARRYING 2,048 2,048
VEHICLES..........
CARGO AND UTILITY
VEHICLES
2 MEDIUM TACTICAL 8,019 8,019
VEHICLE...........
3 CAP VEHICLES....... 946 946
4 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 7,138 7,138
MILLION...........
SPECIAL PURPOSE
VEHICLES
5 SECURITY AND 13,093 13,093
TACTICAL VEHICLES.
6 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 13,983 13,983
MILLION...........
FIRE FIGHTING
EQUIPMENT
7 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH 23,794 23,794
RESCUE VEHICLES...
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
8 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 8,669 8,669
MILLION...........
BASE MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & 6,144 6,144
CLEANING EQUIP....
10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 1,580 1,580
MILLION...........
COMM SECURITY
EQUIPMENT(COMSEC)
12 COMSEC EQUIPMENT... 149,661 149,661
13 MODIFICATIONS 726 726
(COMSEC)..........
INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAMS
14 INTELLIGENCE 2,789 2,789
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
15 INTELLIGENCE COMM 31,875 31,875
EQUIPMENT.........
16 ADVANCE TECH 452 452
SENSORS...........
17 MISSION PLANNING 14,203 14,203
SYSTEMS...........
18 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 46,232 46,232
& LANDING SYS.....
19 NATIONAL AIRSPACE 11,685 11,685
SYSTEM............
20 BATTLE CONTROL 19,248 19,248
SYSTEM--FIXED.....
21 THEATER AIR CONTROL 19,292 19,292
SYS IMPROVEMENTS..
22 WEATHER OBSERVATION 17,166 17,166
FORECAST..........
23 STRATEGIC COMMAND 22,723 22,723
AND CONTROL.......
24 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN 27,930 27,930
COMPLEX...........
25 TAC SIGNIT SPT..... 217 217
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
27 GENERAL INFORMATION 49,627 49,627
TECHNOLOGY........
28 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & 13,559 13,559
CONTROL SYS.......
29 MOBILITY COMMAND 11,186 11,186
AND CONTROL.......
30 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL 43,238 43,238
SECURITY SYSTEM...
31 COMBAT TRAINING 10,431 10,431
RANGES............
32 C3 COUNTERMEASURES. 13,769 13,769
33 GCSS-AF FOS........ 19,138 19,138
34 THEATER BATTLE MGT 8,809 8,809
C2 SYSTEM.........
35 AIR & SPACE 26,935 26,935
OPERATIONS CTR-WPN
SYS...............
AIR FORCE
COMMUNICATIONS
36 INFORMATION 80,558 80,558
TRANSPORT SYSTEMS.
38 AFNET.............. 97,588 97,588
39 VOICE SYSTEMS...... 8,419 8,419
40 USCENTCOM.......... 34,276 34,276
SPACE PROGRAMS
41 SPACE BASED IR 28,235 28,235
SENSOR PGM SPACE..
42 NAVSTAR GPS SPACE.. 2,061 2,061
43 NUDET DETECTION SYS 4,415 4,415
SPACE.............
44 AF SATELLITE 30,237 30,237
CONTROL NETWORK
SPACE.............
45 SPACELIFT RANGE 98,062 98,062
SYSTEM SPACE......
46 MILSATCOM SPACE.... 105,935 105,935
47 SPACE MODS SPACE... 37,861 37,861
48 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM 7,171 7,171
ORGANIZATION AND
BASE
49 TACTICAL C-E 83,537 83,537
EQUIPMENT.........
50 COMBAT SURVIVOR 11,884 11,884
EVADER LOCATER....
51 RADIO EQUIPMENT.... 14,711 14,711
52 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL 10,275 10,275
EQUIPMENT.........
53 BASE COMM 50,907 50,907
INFRASTRUCTURE....
MODIFICATIONS
54 COMM ELECT MODS.... 55,701 55,701
PERSONAL SAFETY &
RESCUE EQUIP
55 NIGHT VISION 14,524 14,524
GOGGLES...........
56 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 28,655 28,655
MILLION...........
DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS
HANDLING EQ
57 MECHANIZED MATERIAL 9,332 9,332
HANDLING EQUIP....
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
58 BASE PROCURED 16,762 16,762
EQUIPMENT.........
59 CONTINGENCY 33,768 33,768
OPERATIONS........
60 PRODUCTIVITY 2,495 2,495
CAPITAL INVESTMENT
61 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT. 12,859 12,859
62 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 1,954 1,954
MILLION...........
SPECIAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
64 DARP RC135......... 24,528 24,528
65 DCGS-AF............ 137,819 137,819
67 SPECIAL UPDATE 479,586 479,586
PROGRAM...........
68 DEFENSE SPACE 45,159 45,159
RECONNAISSANCE
PROG..............
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
68A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 14,519,256 14,519,256
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
70 SPARES AND REPAIR 25,746 25,746
PARTS.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT, 16,760,581 0 16,760,581
AIR FORCE Total...
PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DCAA
1 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 1,291 1,291
MILLION...........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DCMA
2 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 5,711 5,711
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DHRA
3 PERSONNEL 47,201 47,201
ADMINISTRATION....
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DISA
09 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 16,189 16,189
SECURITY..........
12 TELEPORT PROGRAM... 66,075 66,075
13 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 83,881 83,881
MILLION...........
14 NET CENTRIC 2,572 2,572
ENTERPRISE
SERVICES (NCES)...
15 DEFENSE INFORMATION 125,557 125,557
SYSTEM NETWORK....
17 CYBER SECURITY 16,941 16,941
INITIATIVE........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DLA
18 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 13,137 13,137
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DMACT
19 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 5 15,414 5 15,414
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DODEA
20 AUTOMATION/ 1,454 1,454
EDUCATIONAL
SUPPORT &
LOGISTICS.........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE SECURITY
COOPERATION AGENCY
21 EQUIPMENT.......... 978 978
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DSS
22 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 5,020 5,020
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION AGENCY
23 VEHICLES........... 2 100 2 100
24 OTHER MAJOR 3 13,395 3 13,395
EQUIPMENT.........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
MISSILE DEFENSE
AGENCY
26 THAAD.............. 36 581,005 36 581,005
27 AEGIS BMD.......... 52 580,814 52 580,814
28 BMDS AN/TPY-2 62,000 62,000
RADARS............
29 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE 1 131,400 1 131,400
III...............
31 IRON DOME.......... 1 220,309 1 220,309
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
NSA
39 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 14,363 14,363
SECURITY PROGRAM
(ISSP)............
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
OSD
40 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 37,345 37,345
OSD...............
41 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 16,678 16,678
INTELLIGENCE......
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
TJS
42 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 14,792 14,792
TJS...............
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
WHS
43 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 35,259 35,259
WHS...............
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
43A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 544,272 544,272
AVIATION PROGRAMS
45 ROTARY WING 112,456 112,456
UPGRADES AND
SUSTAINMENT.......
46 MH-60 MODERNIZATION 81,457 81,457
PROGRAM...........
47 NON-STANDARD 2,650 2,650
AVIATION..........
48 U-28............... 56,208 56,208
49 MH-47 CHINOOK...... 19,766 19,766
50 RQ-11 UNMANNED 850 850
AERIAL VEHICLE....
51 CV-22 MODIFICATION. 3 98,927 3 98,927
52 MQ-1 UNMANNED 20,576 20,576
AERIAL VEHICLE....
53 MQ-9 UNMANNED 1,893 13,000 14,893
AERIAL VEHICLE....
Capability [13,000]
Improvements....
55 STUASL0............ 13,166 13,166
56 PRECISION STRIKE 107,687 107,687
PACKAGE...........
57 AC/MC-130J......... 51,870 51,870
59 C-130 MODIFICATIONS 71,940 71,940
SHIPBUILDING
61 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS. 37,439 37,439
AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
63 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M 159,029 159,029
OTHER PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
66 INTELLIGENCE 79,819 79,819
SYSTEMS...........
68 DISTRIBUTED COMMON 14,906 14,906
GROUND/SURFACE
SYSTEMS...........
70 OTHER ITEMS <$5M... 81,711 81,711
71 COMBATANT CRAFT 35,053 -1,156 33,897
SYSTEMS...........
CCFLIR--Transfer [-1,156]
at USSOCOM
Request.........
74 SPECIAL PROGRAMS... 41,526 41,526
75 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 43,353 43,353
76 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 210,540 210,540
<$5M..............
78 COMBAT MISSION 20,000 20,000
REQUIREMENTS......
82 GLOBAL VIDEO 6,645 6,645
SURVEILLANCE
ACTIVITIES........
83 OPERATIONAL 25,581 25,581
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE......
89 OPERATIONAL 191,061 191,061
ENHANCEMENTS......
CBDP
91 INSTALLATION FORCE 14,271 14,271
PROTECTION........
92 INDIVIDUAL 101,667 101,667
PROTECTION........
94 JOINT BIO DEFENSE 13,447 13,447
PROGRAM (MEDICAL).
95 COLLECTIVE 20,896 20,896
PROTECTION........
96 CONTAMINATION 144,540 144,540
AVOIDANCE.........
PROCUREMENT, 4,534,083 11,844 4,545,927
DEFENSE-WIDE Total
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
01 JOINT URGENT 98,800 98,800
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND..............
JOINT URGENT 98,800 0 98,800
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND Total........
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT. 98,227,168 -75,879 98,151,289
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
2 SATURN ARCH (MIP).. 4 48,000 4 48,000
4 MQ-1 UAV........... 4 31,988 4 31,988
ROTARY
9 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 4 142,000 4 142,000
IIIB NEW BUILD....
11 KIOWA WARRIOR WRA.. 14 163,800 14 163,800
14 CH-47 HELICOPTER... 10 386,000 10 386,000
AIRCRAFT 771,788 0 771,788
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Total.............
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
3 HELLFIRE SYS 550 54,000 550 54,000
SUMMARY...........
ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
7 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET 383 39,045 383 39,045
(GMLRS)...........
10 ARMY TACTICAL MSL 38 35,600 38 35,600
SYS (ATACMS)--SYS
SUM...............
MISSILE 128,645 0 128,645
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Total.............
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
AMMUNITION
2 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL 4,400 4,400
TYPES.............
4 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL 1,500 1,500
TYPES.............
5 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL 5,000 5,000
TYPES.............
8 CTG, 30MM, ALL 60,000 60,000
TYPES.............
MORTAR AMMUNITION
10 60MM MORTAR, ALL 5,000 5,000
TYPES.............
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
14 ARTILLERY 10,000 10,000
CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
105MM, ALL TYPES..
15 ARTILLERY 10,000 10,000
PROJECTILE, 155MM,
ALL TYPES.........
16 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED 120 11,000 120 11,000
RANGE M982........
ROCKETS
21 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, 57,000 57,000
ALL TYPES.........
OTHER AMMUNITION
22 DEMOLITION 4,000 4,000
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
23 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 3,000 3,000
24 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES. 8,000 8,000
MISCELLANEOUS
28 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES.. 2,000 2,000
PROCUREMENT OF 180,900 0 180,900
AMMUNITION, ARMY
Total.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
13 MINE-RESISTANT 321,040 321,040
AMBUSH-PROTECTED
(MRAP) MODS.......
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
60 INSTALLATION INFO 25,000 25,000
INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
PROGRAM...........
ELECT EQUIP--TACT
INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
67 DCGS-A (MIP)....... 7,200 7,200
71 CI HUMINT AUTO 5,980 5,980
REPRTING AND
COLL(CHARCS)......
74 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER 67 57,800 67 57,800
MORTAR RADAR......
78 FAMILY OF 15,300 15,300
PERSISTENT
SURVEILLANCE
CAPABILITIE.......
79 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/ 4,221 4,221
SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURES...
91 ARTILLERY ACCURACY 34 1,834 34 1,834
EQUIP.............
96 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 137 21,000 137 21,000
(LLDR)............
98 COUNTERFIRE RADARS. 4 85,830 4 85,830
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
146 FORCE PROVIDER..... 3 51,654 3 51,654
147 FIELD FEEDING 18 6,264 18 6,264
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER PROCUREMENT, 603,123 0 603,123
ARMY Total........
JOINT IMPR
EXPLOSIVE DEV
DEFEAT FUND
NETWORK ATTACK
1 ATTACK THE NETWORK. 417,700 417,700
JIEDDO DEVICE
DEFEAT
2 DEFEAT THE DEVICE.. 248,886 248,886
FORCE TRAINING
3 TRAIN THE FORCE.... 106,000 -106,000 0
Program decrease [-106,000]
STAFF AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
4 OPERATIONS......... 227,414 -45,000 182,414
Program decrease [-45,000]
JOINT IMPR 1,000,000 -151,000 849,000
EXPLOSIVE DEV
DEFEAT FUND Total.
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Total
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
11 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/ 1 29,520 1 29,520
AH-1Z)............
OTHER AIRCRAFT
26 MQ-8 UAV........... 1 13,100 1 13,100
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
31 AV-8 SERIES........ 57,652 57,652
33 F-18 SERIES........ 35,500 35,500
39 EP-3 SERIES........ 2,700 2,700
49 SPECIAL PROJECT 3,375 3,375
AIRCRAFT..........
54 COMMON ECM 49,183 49,183
EQUIPMENT.........
55 COMMON AVIONICS 4,190 4,190
CHANGES...........
59 MAGTF EW FOR 20,700 20,700
AVIATION..........
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
65 SPARES AND REPAIR 24,776 24,776
PARTS.............
AIRCRAFT 240,696 0 240,696
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Total.............
WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
TACTICAL MISSILES
9 HELLFIRE........... 270 27,000 270 27,000
10 LASER MAVERICK..... 500 58,000 500 58,000
11 STAND OFF PRECISION 9 1,500 9 1,500
GUIDED MUNITIONS
(SOPGM)...........
WEAPONS 86,500 0 86,500
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Total.............
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
1 GENERAL PURPOSE 11,424 11,424
BOMBS.............
2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, 30,332 30,332
ALL TYPES.........
3 MACHINE GUN 8,282 8,282
AMMUNITION........
6 AIR EXPENDABLE 31,884 31,884
COUNTERMEASURES...
11 OTHER SHIP GUN 409 409
AMMUNITION........
12 SMALL ARMS & 11,976 11,976
LANDING PARTY AMMO
13 PYROTECHNIC AND 2,447 2,447
DEMOLITION........
14 AMMUNITION LESS 7,692 7,692
THAN $5 MILLION...
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
15 SMALL ARMS 13,461 13,461
AMMUNITION........
16 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL 3,310 3,310
TYPES.............
17 40 MM, ALL TYPES... 6,244 6,244
18 60MM, ALL TYPES.... 3,368 3,368
19 81MM, ALL TYPES.... 9,162 9,162
20 120MM, ALL TYPES... 10,266 10,266
21 CTG 25MM, ALL TYPES 1,887 1,887
22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 1,611 1,611
23 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES. 37,459 37,459
24 ARTILLERY, ALL 970 970
TYPES.............
25 DEMOLITION 418 418
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
26 FUZE, ALL TYPES.... 14,219 14,219
PROCUREMENT OF 206,821 0 206,821
AMMO, NAVY & MC
Total.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
135 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 17,968 17,968
OTHER PROCUREMENT, 17,968 0 17,968
NAVY Total........
PROCUREMENT, MARINE
CORPS
GUIDED MISSILES
10 JAVELIN............ 180 29,334 180 29,334
11 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW.. 105 105
OTHER SUPPORT
13 MODIFICATION KITS.. 16,081 16,081
REPAIR AND TEST
EQUIPMENT
15 REPAIR AND TEST 16,081 16,081
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
17 MODIFICATION KITS.. 2,831 2,831
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
18 ITEMS UNDER $5 8,170 8,170
MILLION (COMM &
ELEC).............
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
23 INTELLIGENCE 2,700 2,700
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
26 RQ-11 UAV.......... 2,830 2,830
OTHER SUPPORT (NON-
TEL)
29 COMMON COMPUTER 4,866 4,866
RESOURCES.........
30 COMMAND POST 265 265
SYSTEMS...........
ENGINEER AND OTHER
EQUIPMENT
42 ENVIRONMENTAL 114 114
CONTROL EQUIP
ASSORT............
43 BULK LIQUID 523 523
EQUIPMENT.........
44 TACTICAL FUEL 365 365
SYSTEMS...........
45 POWER EQUIPMENT 2,004 2,004
ASSORTED..........
47 EOD SYSTEMS........ 42,930 42,930
GENERAL PROPERTY
55 FAMILY OF 385 385
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT.........
PROCUREMENT, MARINE 129,584 0 129,584
CORPS Total.......
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
32 LARGE AIRCRAFT 94,050 94,050
INFRARED
COUNTERMEASURES...
OTHER AIRCRAFT
52 U-2 MODS........... 11,300 11,300
59 C-130.............. 1,618 1,618
64 RC-135............. 2,700 2,700
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
79 AIRCRAFT 6,000 6,000
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
AIRCRAFT 115,668 0 115,668
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE Total.......
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
TACTICAL
5 PREDATOR HELLFIRE 211 24,200 211 24,200
MISSILE...........
MISSILE 24,200 0 24,200
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE Total.......
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
ROCKETS
1 ROCKETS............ 326 326
CARTRIDGES
2 CARTRIDGES......... 17,634 17,634
BOMBS
4 GENERAL PURPOSE 37,514 37,514
BOMBS.............
5 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 2,879 84,459 2,879 84,459
MUNITION..........
FLARES
11 FLARES............. 14,973 14,973
12 FUZES.............. 3,859 3,859
SMALL ARMS
14 SMALL ARMS......... 1,200 1,200
PROCUREMENT OF 159,965 0 159,965
AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE Total.......
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
ELECTRONICS
PROGRAMS
22 WEATHER OBSERVATION 1,800 1,800
FORECAST..........
SPACE PROGRAMS
46 MILSATCOM SPACE.... 5,695 5,695
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
59 CONTINGENCY 60,600 60,600
OPERATIONS........
61 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT. 68,000 68,000
SPECIAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
68 DEFENSE SPACE 58,250 58,250
RECONNAISSANCE
PROG..............
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
68A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 2,380,501 2,380,501
OTHER PROCUREMENT, 2,574,846 0 2,574,846
AIR FORCE Total...
PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DISA
12 TELEPORT PROGRAM... 4,760 4,760
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
41A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 78,986 78,986
AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
62 ORDNANCE 25 2,841 25 2,841
REPLENISHMENT.....
OTHER PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
66 INTELLIGENCE 1 13,300 1 13,300
SYSTEMS...........
84 SOLDIER PROTECTION 53 8,034 53 8,034
AND SURVIVAL
SYSTEMS...........
89 OPERATIONAL 126 3,354 126 3,354
ENHANCEMENTS......
PROCUREMENT, 111,275 0 111,275
DEFENSE-WIDE Total
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
1 JOINT URGENT 15,000 15,000
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND..............
JOINT URGENT 15,000 0 15,000
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND Total........
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT. 6,366,979 -151,000 6,215,979
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, ARMY
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 21,803 21,803
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 221,901 221,901
3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 79,359 79,359
INITIATIVES.
4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY 113,662 113,662
RESEARCH CENTERS.
..................... BASIC RESEARCH TOTAL..... 436,725 0 436,725
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
5 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY..... 26,585 26,585
6 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC 43,170 43,170
SURVIVABILITY.
7 0602122A TRACTOR HIP.............. 36,293 36,293
8 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY...... 55,615 55,615
9 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 17,585 17,585
TECHNOLOGY.
10 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY....... 51,528 51,528
11 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS 26,162 26,162
TECHNOLOGY.
12 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 24,063 24,063
SIMULATION.
13 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 64,589 64,589
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
14 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY.... 68,300 10,000 78,300
..................... WIAMan schedule [10,000]
adjustment.
15 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND 4,490 4,490
EQUIPMENT DEFEATING
TECHNOLOGY.
16 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 7,818 7,818
PROGRAM.
17 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 37,798 37,798
TECHNOLOGY.
18 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND 59,021 59,021
ELECTRONIC DEVICES.
19 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY.. 43,426 43,426
20 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS...... 20,574 20,574
21 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 21,339 21,339
TECHNOLOGY.
22 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 20,316 20,316
TECHNOLOGY.
23 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, 34,209 34,209
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY.
24 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE 10,439 10,439
TECHNOLOGY.
25 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING 70,064 70,064
TECHNOLOGY.
26 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/ 17,654 17,654
TRAINING TECHNOLOGY.
27 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY.... 31,546 31,546
28 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY....... 93,340 93,340
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH TOTAL... 885,924 10,000 895,924
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
29 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED 56,056 56,056
TECHNOLOGY.
30 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED 62,032 62,032
TECHNOLOGY.
31 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED 81,080 81,080
TECHNOLOGY.
32 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 63,919 63,919
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
33 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 97,043 97,043
AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
34 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION 5,866 5,866
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
35 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND 7,800 7,800
TRAINING ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
36 0603008A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 40,416 40,416
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
37 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE............. 9,166 9,166
38 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING 13,627 13,627
& SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
39 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE............. 10,667 10,667
41 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM-- 15,054 15,054
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
42 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL............. 3,194 3,194
43 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS............. 2,367 2,367
44 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 25,348 25,348
TECHNOLOGY.
45 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET 64,009 64,009
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
46 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE............. 11,083 11,083
47 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE 180,662 180,662
COMPUTING MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
48 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 22,806 22,806
BARRIER ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
49 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 5,030 5,030
PROGRAM.
50 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED 36,407 36,407
TECHNOLOGY.
51 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 11,745 11,745
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
52 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING 23,717 23,717
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
53 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL 33,012 33,012
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND
SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 882,106 0 882,106
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
54 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE 15,301 15,301
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION.
55 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS 13,592 13,592
INTEGRATION.
56 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 10,625 10,625
BARRIER--ADV DEV.
58 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 30,612 30,612
AMMUNITION.
59 0603653A ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT 49,989 49,989
SYSTEM (ATAS).
60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 6,703 6,703
SURVIVABILITY.
61 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC 6,894 6,894
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV
DEV.
62 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS 9,066 9,066
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
63 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 2,633 2,633
TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
64 0603782A WARFIGHTER INFORMATION 272,384 272,384
NETWORK-TACTICAL--DEM/
VAL.
65 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND 3,874 3,874
DEVELOPMENT.
66 0603801A AVIATION--ADV DEV........ 5,018 5,018
67 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 11,556 11,556
EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
69 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV. 15,603 15,603
70 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED 14,159 14,159
DEVELOPMENT.
71 0603850A INTEGRATED BROADCAST 79 79
SERVICE.
72 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 55,605 55,605
INITIATIVES.
74 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 79,232 79,232
CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2-
INTERCEPT (IFPC2).
75 0604785A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE 4,476 4,476
(BUDGET ACTIVITY 4).
76 0305205A ENDURANCE UAVS........... 28,991 -28,991 0
..................... LEMV termination...... [-28,991]
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT 636,392 -28,991 607,401
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
TOTAL.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
77 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS........ 76,588 76,588
78 0604220A ARMED, DEPLOYABLE HELOS.. 73,309 73,309
79 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 154,621 154,621
DEVELOPMENT.
80 0604280A JOINT TACTICAL RADIO..... 31,826 31,826
81 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING 23,341 23,341
VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR).
82 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS 4,839 4,839
SYSTEM.
83 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE............. 23,841 23,841
84 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS. 79,855 79,855
85 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES. 2,140 2,140
86 0604611A JAVELIN.................. 5,002 5,002
87 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL 21,321 21,321
VEHICLES.
88 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL...... 514 514
93 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG 43,405 43,405
DEV.
94 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, 1,939 1,939
AND EQUIPMENT.
95 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING 18,980 18,980
DEVICES--ENG DEV.
97 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, 18,294 18,294
CONTROL AND
INTELLIGENCE--ENG DEV.
98 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION 17,013 17,013
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
99 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT 6,701 6,701
DEVELOPMENT.
100 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE 14,575 14,575
SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG
DEV.
101 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 27,634 27,634
TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
102 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, 193,748 193,748
INTEGRATION AND
EVALUATION.
103 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS-- 15,721 15,721
ENG DEV.
104 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 41,703 41,703
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
105 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, 7,379 7,379
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS--
ENG DEV.
106 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL 39,468 39,468
BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
107 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER-- 92,285 92,285
ENG DEV.
108 0604814A ARTILLERY MUNITIONS--EMD. 8,209 8,209
109 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & 22,958 22,958
CONTROL HARDWARE &
SOFTWARE.
110 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT........ 1,549 1,549
111 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE 17,342 -17,115 227
BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS).
..................... Excess to requirement. [-17,115]
112 0604823A FIREFINDER............... 47,221 47,221
113 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR 48,477 48,477
DEM/VAL.
114 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD... 80,613 40,700 121,313
..................... Transfer from WTCV 6 [40,700]
at Army Request.
117 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 68,814 68,814
DEVELOPMENT.
118 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 137,290 137,290
PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
119 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE 116,298 116,298
VEHICLE (AMPV).
120 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 68,148 68,148
CENTER (JTNC).
121 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 33,219 33,219
SYSTEM (JTRS).
122 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 15,127 15,127
MISSILE (JAGM).
124 0605456A PAC-3/MSE MISSILE........ 68,843 68,843
125 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND 364,649 364,649
MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD).
126 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE.... 592,201 592,201
127 0605626A AERIAL COMMON SENSOR..... 10,382 10,382
128 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES 21,143 21,143
INTEGRATION (MIP).
129 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 84,230 84,230
VEHICLE (JLTV)
ENGINEERING AND
MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
130 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............. 3,465 3,465
131 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 10,806 10,806
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & 2,857,026 23,585 2,880,611
DEMONSTRATION TOTAL.
.....................
..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
132 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR 16,934 16,934
DEVELOPMENT.
133 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS 13,488 13,488
DEVELOPMENT.
134 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 46,672 46,672
135 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER....... 11,919 11,919
136 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL..... 193,658 193,658
137 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION 37,158 37,158
PROGRAM.
139 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND 340,659 340,659
FACILITIES.
140 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST 66,061 66,061
INSTRUMENTATION AND
TARGETS.
141 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY 43,280 43,280
ANALYSIS.
143 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION... 6,025 6,025
144 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO 7,349 7,349
RDT&E ACTIVITIES.
145 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 19,809 19,809
146 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN 5,941 5,941
ITEMS.
147 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL 55,504 55,504
TESTING.
148 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER... 65,274 65,274
149 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD 1,283 1,283
COLLABORATION & INTEG.
150 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES... 82,035 82,035
151 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION 33,853 5,000 38,853
ACTIVITIES.
..................... Internet mapping....... [5,000]
152 0605805A MUNITIONS 53,340 53,340
STANDARDIZATION,
EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY.
153 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 5,193 5,193
TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT.
154 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 54,175 54,175
..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 1,159,610 5,000 1,164,610
TOTAL.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
156 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 110,576 110,576
PROGRAM.
157 0607141A LOGISTICS AUTOMATION..... 3,717 3,717
159 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT 70,053 70,053
IMPROVEMENT.
160 0102419A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT 98,450 98,450
OFFICE.
161 0203726A ADV FIELD ARTILLERY 30,940 30,940
TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM.
162 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE 177,532 177,532
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
163 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM.. 36,495 36,495
164 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/ 257,187 19,984 277,171
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
..................... Transfer from APA 11 [19,984]
at Army request.
165 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 315 315
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
166 0203758A DIGITIZATION............. 6,186 6,186
167 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE 1,578 1,578
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
168 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT 62,100 62,100
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
169 0203808A TRACTOR CARD............. 18,778 18,778
170 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND 7,108 7,108
SYSTEM.
173 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 7,600 7,600
ACTIVITIES.
174 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS 9,357 9,357
SECURITY PROGRAM.
175 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 41,225 41,225
SYSTEM.
176 0303142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT 18,197 18,197
(SPACE).
177 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 14,215 14,215
CONTROL SYSTEM.
179 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 33,533 33,533
VEHICLES.
180 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 27,622 27,622
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
181 0305219A MQ-1C GRAY EAGLE UAS..... 10,901 10,901
182 0305232A RQ-11 UAV................ 2,321 2,321
183 0305233A RQ-7 UAV................. 12,031 12,031
185 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 12,449 12,449
INTELLIGENCE.
186 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL 56,136 56,136
PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
186A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 4,717 4,717
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 1,131,319 19,984 1,151,303
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL.
..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 7,989,102 29,578 8,018,680
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, NAVY
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 112,617 112,617
INITIATIVES.
2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 18,230 18,230
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 484,459 484,459
..................... BASIC RESEARCH TOTAL..... 615,306 0 615,306
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED 104,513 104,513
RESEARCH.
5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED 145,307 145,307
RESEARCH.
6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING 47,334 47,334
FORCE TECHNOLOGY.
7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED 34,163 34,163
RESEARCH.
8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT 49,689 49,689
APPLIED RESEARCH.
9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 97,701 97,701
APPLIED RESEARCH.
10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING 45,685 45,685
ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
RESEARCH.
11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 6,060 6,060
APPLIED RESEARCH.
12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED 103,050 103,050
RESEARCH.
13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 169,710 169,710
APPLIED RESEARCH.
14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 31,326 31,326
WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH TOTAL... 834,538 0 834,538
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
15 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED 48,201 48,201
TECHNOLOGY.
16 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED 28,328 28,328
TECHNOLOGY.
19 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 56,179 56,179
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
20 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 132,400 132,400
DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
21 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 11,854 11,854
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
22 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 247,931 247,931
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
23 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION 4,760 4,760
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
25 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING 51,463 51,463
EXPERIMENTS AND
DEMONSTRATIONS.
26 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 2,000 2,000
WARFARE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 583,116 0 583,116
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
27 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL 42,246 42,246
APPLICATIONS.
28 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY... 5,591 5,591
29 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND 3,262 3,262
AND CONTROL.
30 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS......... 74 74
31 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.. 7,964 7,964
32 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE 5,257 5,257
RECONNAISSANCE.
33 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS 1,570 1,570
TECHNOLOGY.
34 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER 168,040 168,040
MINE COUNTERMEASURES.
35 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO 88,649 88,649
DEFENSE.
36 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS 83,902 83,902
DEVELOPMENT.
37 0603525N PILOT FISH............... 108,713 108,713
38 0603527N RETRACT LARCH............ 9,316 9,316
39 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER.......... 77,108 77,108
40 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL..... 762 762
41 0603553N SURFACE ASW.............. 2,349 2,349
42 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM 852,977 852,977
DEVELOPMENT.
43 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 8,764 8,764
WARFARE SYSTEMS.
44 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED 20,501 20,501
DESIGN.
45 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & 27,052 27,052
FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
46 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER 428,933 428,933
SYSTEMS.
47 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE 27,154 27,154
MACHINERY SYSTEMS.
48 0603576N CHALK EAGLE.............. 519,140 519,140
49 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP 406,389 406,389
(LCS).
50 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION 36,570 36,570
51 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS... 8,404 8,404
52 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT 136,967 136,967
VEHICLES.
53 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND 1,489 1,489
COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM.
54 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 38,422 38,422
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
55 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT... 69,312 69,312
56 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING 9,196 9,196
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
57 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 18,850 18,850
58 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM...... 45,618 45,618
59 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT... 3,019 3,019
60 0603734N CHALK CORAL.............. 144,951 144,951
61 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC 5,797 5,797
PRODUCTIVITY.
62 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE............ 308,131 308,131
63 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA............ 195,189 195,189
64 0603751N RETRACT ELM.............. 56,358 56,358
65 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN........... 55,378 55,378
66 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES........ 48,842 48,842
67 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND 7,509 7,509
DEVELOPMENT.
68 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY... 5,075 5,075
69 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 51,178 51,178
TESTING.
70 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 205,615 205,615
AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
VAL.
72 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 37,227 37,227
INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
(TADIRCM).
73 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION 169 169
OPTIMIZATION.
74 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO 20,874 20,874
CONTROLLED IED
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(JCREW).
75 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS 2,257 2,257
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
76 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 38,327 38,327
WARFARE (SEW)
ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING
SUPPORT.
77 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE 135,985 -100,000 35,985
WARFARE WEAPON
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Adjust program to more [-100,000]
realistic schedule.
78 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 50,362 50,362
VEHICLE (JLTV)
ENGINEERING AND
MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
79 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT-- 8,448 8,448
MIP.
80 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 153 153
DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT 4,641,385 -100,000 4,541,385
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
TOTAL.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
81 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT... 40,558 40,558
82 0604214N AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV.. 35,825 35,825
83 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT.... 99,891 99,891
84 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER 17,565 17,565
UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
85 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT 4,026 4,026
ENGINEERING.
86 0604221N P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM 1,791 1,791
87 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM... 11,725 11,725
88 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM.. 68,463 68,463
89 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE......... 152,041 152,041
90 0604245N H-1 UPGRADES............. 47,123 47,123
91 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS.. 30,208 30,208
92 0604262N V-22A.................... 43,084 43,084
93 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS 11,401 11,401
DEVELOPMENT.
94 0604269N EA-18.................... 11,138 11,138
95 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 34,964 34,964
DEVELOPMENT.
96 0604273N VH-71A EXECUTIVE HELO 94,238 94,238
DEVELOPMENT.
97 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 257,796 257,796
(NGJ).
98 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 3,302 3,302
SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY).
99 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT 240,298 240,298
SYSTEM ENGINEERING.
100 0604311N LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS 1,214 1,214
INTEGRATION.
101 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) 46,007 46,007
102 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE 75,592 75,592
IMPROVEMENTS.
103 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM............. 117,854 117,854
104 0604376M MARINE AIR GROUND TASK 10,080 10,080
FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC
WARFARE (EW) FOR
AVIATION.
105 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE 21,413 21,413
CONTROL--COUNTER AIR
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
106 0604404N UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED 146,683 146,683
AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE
AND STRIKE (UCLASS)
SYSTEM.
107 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER 275,871 275,871
SENSORS.
108 0604503N SSN-688 AND TRIDENT 89,672 89,672
MODERNIZATION.
109 0604504N AIR CONTROL.............. 13,754 13,754
110 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION 69,615 69,615
SYSTEMS.
112 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN........... 121,566 121,566
113 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 49,143 49,143
WARFARE SYSTEM.
114 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ 155,254 20,000 175,254
LIVE FIRE T&E.
..................... Increased LHA-8 design [20,000]
efforts.
115 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER 3,689 3,689
RESOURCES.
116 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT......... 5,041 5,041
117 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO 26,444 26,444
DEVELOPMENT.
118 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 8,897 8,897
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
119 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, 6,233 6,233
SIMULATION, AND HUMAN
FACTORS.
120 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 442 442
SYSTEMS.
121 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT 130,360 130,360
& CONTROL).
122 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 50,209 50,209
(ENGAGE: HARD KILL).
123 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 164,799 164,799
(ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW).
124 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING. 1,984 1,984
125 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT...... 9,458 9,458
126 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM..... 51,430 51,430
127 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 512,631 512,631
(JSF)--EMD.
128 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 534,187 534,187
(JSF)--EMD.
129 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 5,564 5,564
DEVELOPMENT.
130 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 69,659 69,659
DEVELOPMENT.
132 0605212N CH-53K RDTE.............. 503,180 503,180
133 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 5,500 5,500
MISSILE (JAGM).
134 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 317,358 317,358
AIRCRAFT (MMA).
135 0204202N DDG-1000................. 187,910 187,910
136 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM-- 2,140 2,140
MIP.
137 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 9,406 9,406
SYSTEMS.
138 0305124N SPECIAL APPLICATIONS 22,800 22,800
PROGRAM.
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & 5,028,476 20,000 5,048,476
DEMONSTRATION TOTAL.
.....................
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
139 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR 43,261 43,261
DEVELOPMENT.
140 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS 71,872 71,872
DEVELOPMENT.
141 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 38,033 38,033
142 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND 1,352 1,352
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION.
143 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 5,566 5,566
SUPPORT--NAVY.
144 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES 48,345 48,345
146 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION 637 637
SERVICES.
147 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & 76,585 76,585
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
148 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL 3,221 3,221
SUPPORT.
149 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND 72,725 72,725
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT.
150 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT 141,778 141,778
SUPPORT.
151 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION 331,219 331,219
SUPPORT.
152 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND 16,565 16,565
EVALUATION CAPABILITY.
153 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 3,265 3,265
WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
154 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/ 7,134 7,134
RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT.
155 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE 24,082 24,082
SUPPORT.
156 0305885N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 497 497
ACTIVITIES.
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TOTAL. 886,137 0 886,137
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
159 0604227N HARPOON MODIFICATIONS.... 699 699
160 0604402N UNMANNED COMBAT AIR 20,961 20,961
VEHICLE (UCAV) ADVANCED
COMPONENT AND PROTOTYPE
DEVELOPMENT.
162 0604766M MARINE CORPS DATA SYSTEMS 35 35
163 0605525N CARRIER ONBOARD DELIVERY 2,460 2,460
(COD) FOLLOW ON.
164 0605555N STRIKE WEAPONS 9,757 9,757
DEVELOPMENT.
165 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS 98,057 98,057
SYSTEM SUPPORT.
166 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY 31,768 31,768
PROGRAM.
167 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 1,464 1,464
WARFARE DEVELOPMENT.
168 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC 21,729 21,729
COMMUNICATIONS.
169 0203761N RAPID TECHNOLOGY 13,561 13,561
TRANSITION (RTT).
170 0204136N F/A-18 SQUADRONS......... 131,118 131,118
171 0204152N E-2 SQUADRONS............ 1,971 1,971
172 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS 46,155 46,155
(TACTICAL).
173 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT.......... 2,374 2,374
174 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK 12,407 12,407
MISSION PLANNING CENTER
(TMPC).
175 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 41,609 41,609
SYSTEM.
176 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL 7,240 7,240
SUPPORT UNITS
(DISPLACEMENT CRAFT).
177 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED 78,208 78,208
RADAR (G/ATOR).
178 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING 45,124 45,124
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
179 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT 2,703 2,703
SUPPORT.
180 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 19,563 19,563
READINESS SUPPORT.
181 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT......... 13,586 13,586
182 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS...... 197,538 197,538
183 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM 31,863 31,863
INTEGRATION.
184 0205632N MK-48 ADCAP.............. 12,806 12,806
185 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS.... 88,607 88,607
187 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER 116,928 116,928
SYSTEMS.
188 0206313M MARINE CORPS 178,753 178,753
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
189 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND 139,594 -20,875 118,719
COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS
SYSTEMS.
..................... Marine Personnel [-20,875]
Carrier program
deferred.
190 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 42,647 42,647
SERVICES SUPPORT.
191 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ 34,394 34,394
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
SYSTEMS (MIP).
192 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES.... 39,159 39,159
193 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 2,613 2,613
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
194 0208058N JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL 986 986
(JHSV).
199 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 66,231 66,231
(SPACE).
200 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT 24,476 24,476
NETWORK ENTERPRISE
SERVICES (CANES).
201 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS 23,531 23,531
SECURITY PROGRAM.
206 0305160N NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND 742 742
OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE
(METOC).
207 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 4,804 4,804
PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES.
208 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 8,381 8,381
VEHICLES.
211 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 5,535 5,535
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
212 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 19,718 19,718
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
213 0305220N RQ-4 UAV................. 375,235 375,235
214 0305231N MQ-8 UAV................. 48,713 48,713
215 0305232M RQ-11 UAV................ 102 102
216 0305233N RQ-7 UAV................. 710 710
217 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL 5,013 5,013
UAS (STUASL0).
219 0305239M RQ-21A................... 11,122 11,122
220 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR 28,851 28,851
DEVELOPMENT.
221 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION 5,116 5,116
SUPPORT.
222 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 28,042 28,042
IF).
223 0708011N INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.. 50,933 50,933
224 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY 4,998 4,998
(MARITECH).
224A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 1,185,132 1,185,132
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 3,385,822 -20,875 3,364,947
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL.
..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 15,974,780 -100,875 15,873,905
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, AF
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 373,151 373,151
2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 138,333 138,333
INITIATIVES.
3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER 13,286 13,286
RESEARCH INITIATIVES.
..................... BASIC RESEARCH TOTAL..... 524,770 0 524,770
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
4 0602102F MATERIALS................ 116,846 116,846
5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE 119,672 119,672
TECHNOLOGIES.
6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 89,483 89,483
APPLIED RESEARCH.
7 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION..... 197,546 197,546
8 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS........ 127,539 127,539
9 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY......... 104,063 104,063
10 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS... 81,521 81,521
11 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY 112,845 112,845
TECHNOLOGY.
12 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION 138,161 138,161
SCIENCES AND METHODS.
13 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER 40,217 40,217
RESEARCH.
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH TOTAL... 1,127,893 0 1,127,893
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
14 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR 39,572 39,572
WEAPON SYSTEMS.
15 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND 12,800 12,800
TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
16 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE 30,579 30,579
SENSORS.
17 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/ 77,347 77,347
DEMO.
18 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND 149,321 149,321
POWER TECHNOLOGY.
19 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT 49,128 49,128
TECHNOLOGY.
20 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT 68,071 68,071
TECHNOLOGY.
21 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE 26,299 26,299
SYSTEM (MSSS).
22 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 20,967 20,967
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
23 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS 33,996 33,996
TECHNOLOGY.
24 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS 19,000 19,000
TECHNOLOGY.
25 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 41,353 41,353
PROGRAM.
26 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE 49,093 49,093
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 617,526 0 617,526
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
28 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 3,983 3,983
DEVELOPMENT.
29 0603287F PHYSICAL SECURITY 3,874 3,874
EQUIPMENT.
32 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. 27,024 27,024
33 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION 15,899 15,899
TECHNOLOGY.
34 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND 4,568 4,568
DEVELOPMENT.
35 0603791F INTERNATIONAL SPACE 379 379
COOPERATIVE R&D.
36 0603830F SPACE PROTECTION PROGRAM 28,764 28,764
(SPP).
38 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL 86,737 86,737
BALLISTIC MISSILE--DEM/
VAL.
40 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION--DEM/ 953 953
VAL.
42 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE........ 379,437 379,437
44 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER...... 2,606 2,606
45 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED 103 103
TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM
(HDBTDS) PROGRAM.
47 0604337F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND 16,018 16,018
MATURATION.
49 0604458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER... 58,861 58,861
50 0604618F JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 2,500 2,500
MUNITION.
51 0604635F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS 21,175 21,175
FUZE DEVELOPMENT.
52 0604857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE 0 10,000 10,000
SPACE.
..................... Program increase...... [10,000]
53 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM.. 13,636 13,636
54 0105921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO 2,799 2,799
STRATCOM--SPACE
ACTIVITIES.
55 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG- 70,160 70,160
RANGE RADAR (3DELRR).
56 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL 137,233 137,233
POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER
EQUIPMENT) (SPACE).
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT 876,709 10,000 886,709
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
TOTAL.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
58 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 977 977
DEVELOPMENT.
61 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE 3,601 3,601
FLIGHT TRAINING.
62 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE 1,971 1,971
DEVELOPMENT.
64 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS 51,456 -15,200 36,256
ENTERPRISE.
..................... Unjustified request... [-15,200]
65 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY 50 50
EQUIPMENT.
66 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 115,000 115,000
(SDB)--EMD.
67 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS..... 23,930 23,930
68 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 400,258 400,258
SYSTEMS.
69 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC 4,575 4,575
ATTACK.
70 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED 352,532 352,532
SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
71 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE 16,284 16,284
DEVELOPMENT.
72 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS............. 2,564 2,564
73 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT..... 17,036 17,036
74 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS..... 7,273 7,273
75 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES... 33,200 33,200
78 0604800F F-35--EMD................ 816,335 816,335
79 0604851F INTERCONTINENTAL 145,442 145,442
BALLISTIC MISSILE--EMD.
80 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH 27,963 27,963
VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)--
EMD.
81 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF 5,000 5,000
WEAPON.
82 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION.. 129,411 129,411
83 0605213F F-22 MODERNIZATION 131,100 131,100
INCREMENT 3.2B.
84 0605221F KC-46.................... 1,558,590 1,558,590
85 0605229F CSAR HH-60 393,558 393,558
RECAPITALIZATION.
86 0605278F HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E.... 6,242 6,242
87 0605431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM 272,872 272,872
(SPACE).
88 0605432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE).. 124,805 124,805
89 0605433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM 13,948 13,948
(SPACE).
90 0605931F B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT 303,500 303,500
SYSTEM.
91 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS 67,874 67,874
MODERNIZATION.
94 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION 4,663 4,663
TRAINING.
97 0401318F CV-22.................... 46,705 46,705
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & 5,078,715 -15,200 5,063,515
DEMONSTRATION TOTAL.
.....................
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
99 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR 17,690 17,690
DEVELOPMENT.
100 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 34,841 34,841
101 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE... 32,956 32,956
103 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST 13,610 13,610
& EVALUATION.
104 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION 742,658 742,658
SUPPORT.
105 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH 14,203 14,203
PROGRAM (SPACE).
106 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP). 13,000 13,000
107 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION 44,160 44,160
AND MODERNIZATION--TEST
AND EVALUATION SUPPORT.
108 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT-- 27,643 27,643
TEST AND EVALUATION
SUPPORT.
109 0606323F MULTI-SERVICE SYSTEMS 13,935 13,935
ENGINEERING INITIATIVE.
110 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER 192,348 192,348
(SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE.
111 0702806F ACQUISITION AND 28,647 28,647
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
112 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING... 315 315
114 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 3,785 3,785
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TOTAL. 1,179,791 0 1,179,791
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
115 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 383,500 383,500
III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL
SEGMENT.
117 0604445F WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE... 5,000 5,000
118 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL 90,097 90,097
AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS).
119 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 32,086 32,086
EXECUTIVE AGENCY.
121 0101113F B-52 SQUADRONS........... 24,007 24,007
122 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE 450 450
MISSILE (ALCM).
123 0101126F B-1B SQUADRONS........... 19,589 19,589
124 0101127F B-2 SQUADRONS............ 100,194 100,194
125 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING 37,448 37,448
SYSTEM--USSTRATCOM.
128 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION 1,700 1,700
CONTROL CENTER
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
130 0203761F WARFIGHTER RAPID 3,844 3,844
ACQUISITION PROCESS
(WRAP) RAPID TRANSITION
FUND.
131 0205219F MQ-9 UAV................. 128,328 128,328
133 0207131F A-10 SQUADRONS........... 9,614 9,614
134 0207133F F-16 SQUADRONS........... 177,298 177,298
135 0207134F F-15E SQUADRONS.......... 244,289 244,289
136 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE 13,138 13,138
SUPPRESSION.
137 0207138F F-22A SQUADRONS.......... 328,542 328,542
138 0207142F F-35 SQUADRONS........... 33,000 33,000
139 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES.... 15,460 15,460
140 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 84,172 84,172
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
142 0207224F COMBAT RESCUE AND 2,582 2,582
RECOVERY.
143 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE 542 542
144 0207247F AF TENCAP................ 89,816 -76,800 13,016
..................... Reduction fighter [-76,800]
communications POD.
145 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS 1,075 1,075
PROCUREMENT.
146 0207253F COMPASS CALL............. 10,782 10,782
147 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 139,369 139,369
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
149 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE 6,373 6,373
STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM).
150 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS 22,820 22,820
CENTER (AOC).
151 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING 7,029 7,029
CENTER (CRC).
152 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND 186,256 186,256
CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS).
153 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL 743 743
SYSTEMS.
156 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE 4,471 4,471
SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
158 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL 10,250 10,250
PARTY-MOD.
159 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK. 1,431 1,431
160 0207449F COMMAND AND CONTROL (C2) 7,329 7,329
CONSTELLATION.
161 0207452F DCAPES................... 15,081 15,081
162 0207581F JOINT SURVEILLANCE/TARGET 13,248 9,900 23,148
ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM
(JSTARS).
..................... Continue T-3 testing [9,900]
operations.
163 0207590F SEEK EAGLE............... 24,342 24,342
164 0207601F USAF MODELING AND 10,448 10,448
SIMULATION.
165 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION 5,512 5,512
CENTERS.
166 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND 3,301 3,301
EXERCISES.
167 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS. 62,605 62,605
169 0208059F CYBER COMMAND ACTIVITIES. 68,099 68,099
170 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 14,047 14,047
OPERATIONS.
171 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 5,853 5,853
OPERATIONS.
179 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY 12,197 12,197
INTELLIGENCE.
180 0302015F E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE 18,267 18,267
OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC).
181 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 36,288 36,288
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK (MEECN).
182 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS 90,231 10,000 100,231
SECURITY PROGRAM.
..................... ASACoE program........ [10,000]
183 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 725 725
SYSTEM.
185 0303601F MILSATCOM TERMINALS...... 140,170 140,170
187 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT 117,110 117,110
ENTERPRISE.
190 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC 4,430 4,430
MANAGEMENT (GATM).
191 0305103F CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 2,048 2,048
192 0305105F DOD CYBER CRIME CENTER... 288 288
193 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK 35,698 35,698
(SPACE).
194 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE.......... 24,667 24,667
195 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, 35,674 35,674
APPROACH, AND LANDING
SYSTEM (ATCALS).
196 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS........... 21,186 21,186
199 0305128F SECURITY AND 195 195
INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES.
200 0305145F ARMS CONTROL 1,430 1,430
IMPLEMENTATION.
201 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT 330 330
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
ACTIVITIES.
206 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST 3,696 3,696
AND EVALUATION CENTER.
207 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION, 2,469 2,469
INTEGRATION AND RAPID
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
208 0305179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST 8,289 8,289
SERVICE (IBS).
209 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM 13,345 13,345
(SPACE).
211 0305202F DRAGON U-2............... 18,700 18,700
212 0305205F ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL 3,000 3,000
VEHICLES.
213 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 37,828 12,500 50,328
SYSTEMS.
..................... Blue Devil Replacement [15,000]
WAMI/NVDF.
..................... Unjustified amount.... [-2,500]
214 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 13,491 13,491
SYSTEMS.
215 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 7,498 7,498
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
216 0305219F MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV...... 3,326 3,326
217 0305220F RQ-4 UAV................. 134,406 134,406
218 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC 7,413 7,413
COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
219 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK (CDL)... 40,503 40,503
220 0305238F NATO AGS................. 264,134 264,134
221 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS 23,016 23,016
ENTERPRISE.
222 0305265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT.... 221,276 221,276
223 0305614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM..... 58,523 58,523
224 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION.. 2,218 2,218
226 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM 50,547 50,547
(SPACE).
227 0305940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 18,807 18,807
OPERATIONS.
229 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING 1,079 1,079
(SEW).
230 0401115F C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON... 400 400
231 0401119F C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS 61,492 61,492
(IF).
232 0401130F C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF)....... 109,134 109,134
233 0401132F C-130J PROGRAM........... 22,443 22,443
234 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR 4,116 4,116
COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM).
238 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT 44,553 44,553
AIRLIFT.
239 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT 6,213 6,213
CONTROL.
240 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 1,605 1,605
IF).
242 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION 95,238 95,238
TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
243 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS 10,925 10,925
DEVELOPMENT.
244 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING.... 1,347 1,347
245 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL 65 65
ACTIVITIES.
246 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY 1,083 1,083
AGENCY.
247 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION 1,577 1,577
PROGRAM.
248 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION. 5,990 5,990
249 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND 786 786
ANALYSIS AGENCY.
250 0901279F FACILITIES OPERATION-- 654 654
ADMINISTRATIVE.
251 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 135,735 135,735
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
251A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 11,874,528 0 11,874,528
..................... Reduction to [-70,000]
classified program.
..................... Increase to classified [70,000]
program.
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 16,297,542 -44,400 16,253,142
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL.
..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 25,702,946 -49,600 25,653,346
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, DW
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH 45,837 45,837
INITIATIVE.
2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 315,033 315,033
3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH 11,171 11,171
INITIATIVES.
4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL 49,500 49,500
RESEARCH SCIENCE.
5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE 84,271 84,271
EDUCATION PROGRAM.
6 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK 30,895 30,895
COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY
INSTITUTIONS.
7 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 51,426 51,426
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
..................... BASIC RESEARCH TOTAL..... 588,133 0 588,133
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
8 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS 20,065 20,065
TECHNOLOGY.
9 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY.... 114,790 114,790
11 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY 46,875 -5,000 41,875
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
..................... MIT LL reduction...... [-5,000]
13 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE 45,000 -15,000 30,000
ADVANCEMENT OF S&T
PRIORITIES.
..................... PSC S&T reduction..... [-15,000]
14 0602303E INFORMATION & 413,260 5,000 418,260
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Plan X increase....... [5,000]
15 0602304E COGNITIVE COMPUTING 16,330 16,330
SYSTEMS.
17 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE 24,537 24,537
DEFENSE.
18 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 227,065 227,065
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
20 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH.. 18,908 0 18,908
..................... Assuring effective [-2,000]
missions.
..................... Automated software [2,000]
analysis tools.
21 0602670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE 0 5,000 5,000
BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB)
APPLIED RESEARCH.
..................... HSCB Apl Res extension [5,000]
22 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY...... 225,977 225,977
23 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL 166,654 166,654
TECHNOLOGY.
24 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY... 243,469 243,469
25 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS 175,282 175,282
DESTRUCTION DEFEAT
TECHNOLOGIES.
26 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 11,107 11,107
INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED
RESEARCH.
27 1160401BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 29,246 29,246
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH TOTAL... 1,778,565 -10,000 1,768,565
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
28 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED 26,646 26,646
TECHNOLOGY.
29 0603121D8Z SO/LIC ADVANCED 19,420 19,420
DEVELOPMENT.
30 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 77,792 -17,000 60,792
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
..................... Reduction due to [-17,000]
redundancy.
31 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION 274,033 274,033
INITIATIVES--PROLIFERATI
ON PREVENTION AND DEFEAT.
32 0603175C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 309,203 -30,000 279,203
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Directed energy--DPALS [-5,000]
..................... Advanced Technology-- [-25,000]
unsustainable growth.
34 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS 19,305 19,305
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
35 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR 7,565 7,565
THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)--
THEATER CAPABILITY.
36 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM--MDA 40,426 40,426
TECHNOLOGY.
37 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE 149,804 149,804
SYSTEMS.
38 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND 172,546 172,546
TECHNOLOGY.
39 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 170,847 170,847
DEFENSE PROGRAM--
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
40 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED 9,009 9,009
TECHNOLOGY.
41 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY 174,428 -10,000 164,428
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
..................... JCTD reduction........ [-10,000]
42 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS 20,000 -15,000 5,000
CAPABILITIES.
..................... Net Comm reduction.... [-15,000]
45 0603668D8Z CYBER SECURITY ADVANCED 19,668 0 19,668
RESEARCH.
..................... Assuring effective [-3,000]
missions.
..................... Automated software [3,000]
analysis tools.
46 0603670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE 0 5,000 5,000
BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB)
ADVANCED RESEARCH.
..................... HSCB Adv Dev extension [5,000]
47 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE 34,041 25,000 59,041
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
..................... IBIF.................. [25,000]
48 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES 61,971 61,971
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
50 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D 20,000 20,000
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
51 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND 30,256 30,256
DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE
TECHNOLOGY.
52 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL 72,324 72,324
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
53 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS 82,700 82,700
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
AND SUPPORT.
54 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM 8,431 8,431
55 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 117,080 117,080
TECHNOLOGIES.
57 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND 239,078 239,078
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
59 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE 259,006 259,006
TECHNOLOGY.
60 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY........ 286,364 286,364
61 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING 12,116 12,116
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
62 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 19,008 19,008
INSTITUTE.
63 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL 78,532 -20,000 58,532
PROJECTS.
..................... Quick & Rapid Reaction [-20,000]
Fund reduction.
65 0603828J JOINT EXPERIMENTATION.... 12,667 12,667
66 0603832D8Z DOD MODELING AND 41,370 41,370
SIMULATION MANAGEMENT
OFFICE.
69 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE 92,508 92,508
& TECHNOLOGY.
70 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY 52,001 52,001
CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
71 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS............. 52,053 3,000 55,053
..................... Program increase...... [3,000]
72 1160402BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 46,809 46,809
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 3,109,007 -59,000 3,050,007
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT AND
PROTOTYPES
75 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 63,641 63,641
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
76 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH............ 19,152 19,152
77 0603600D8Z WALKOFF.................. 70,763 70,763
79 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSORS 17,230 2,000 19,230
APPLICATION PROGRAM.
..................... Sustain testing effort [2,000]
80 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 71,453 71,453
TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM.
81 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 268,990 268,990
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
82 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 1,033,903 1,033,903
MIDCOURSE DEFENSE
SEGMENT.
83 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 196,237 196,237
DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL.
84 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 315,183 30,000 345,183
SENSORS.
..................... Additional homeland [30,000]
missile defense radar.
86 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS.... 377,605 377,605
87 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA.... 286,613 286,613
88 0603892C AEGIS BMD................ 937,056 937,056
89 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & 44,947 44,947
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
90 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 6,515 6,515
SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
91 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 418,355 418,355
COMMAND AND CONTROL,
BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND
COMMUNICATI.
92 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 47,419 47,419
JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
93 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE 52,131 52,131
INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS
CENTER (MDIOC).
94 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH......... 13,864 13,864
95 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR 44,478 44,478
(SBX).
96 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 95,782 150,000 245,782
PROGRAMS.
..................... Arrow Weapon System [30,000]
Improvements.
..................... Arrow-3 Interceptor... [20,000]
..................... David's Sling short- [100,000]
range BMD.
97 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 375,866 375,866
TEST.
98 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 495,257 495,257
TARGETS.
99 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING.... 11,704 11,704
100 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE........ 9,842 9,842
101 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,312 3,312
CORROSION PROGRAM.
102 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 130,000 -30,000 100,000
TECHNOLOGIES.
..................... Adv Innov Tech [-30,000]
reduction.
103 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 8,300 8,300
(DOD) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SYSTEM (UAS) COMMON
DEVELOPMENT.
104 0604445J WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE... 30,000 30,000
105 0604670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE 0 5,000 5,000
BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB)
RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING.
..................... HSCB Modeling R&E [5,000]
extension.
106 0604775D8Z DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION 0 150,000 150,000
PROGRAM.
..................... RIP................... [150,000]
108 0604787J JOINT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 7,402 7,402
110 0604828J JOINT FIRES INTEGRATION 7,506 7,506
AND INTEROPERABILITY
TEAM.
111 0604880C LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3).. 129,374 129,374
112 0604881C AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO- 308,522 308,522
DEVELOPMENT.
115 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC 3,169 3,169
TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM.
116 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 946 946
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT 5,902,517 307,000 6,209,517
DEVELOPMENT AND
PROTOTYPES TOTAL.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION
118 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 8,155 8,155
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD.
119 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE 65,440 65,440
CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
120 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 451,306 451,306
DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
122 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES 29,138 29,138
JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE
(AITS-JPO).
123 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL 19,475 19,475
INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM (JTIDS).
124 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS 12,901 12,901
DESTRUCTION DEFEAT
CAPABILITIES.
125 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 13,812 13,812
DEVELOPMENT.
126 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL 386 386
SECURITY INITIATIVE.
127 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY 3,763 3,763
PROGRAM.
128 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT 6,788 6,788
INITIATIVES.
129 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 27,917 27,917
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
130 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND 22,297 22,297
INTEGRATION.
131 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES 51,689 51,689
(DAI)--FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
132 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC 6,184 6,184
PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES.
133 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 12,083 12,083
SYSTEM.
134 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY 3,302 3,302
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
(EEIM).
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND 734,636 0 734,636
DEMONSTRATION TOTAL.
.....................
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
135 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS 6,393 6,393
REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS).
136 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS 2,479 2,479
ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT.
137 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND 240,213 240,213
EVALUATION INVESTMENT
DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP).
138 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND 2,127 2,127
EVALUATIONS.
139 0604943D8Z THERMAL VICAR............ 8,287 8,287
140 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT 31,000 31,000
TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC).
141 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, 24,379 24,379
SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS.
143 0605117D8Z FOREIGN MATERIEL 54,311 54,311
ACQUISITION AND
EXPLOITATION.
144 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND 47,462 47,462
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO).
146 0605130D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE 12,134 12,134
TESTING.
147 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING...... 44,237 -5,000 39,237
..................... SE transfer to DT&E... [-5,000]
148 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 5,871 5,871
SUPPORT--OSD.
149 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL 5,028 5,028
SECURITY.
150 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND 6,301 6,301
INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
151 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD 6,504 6,504
(INTELLIGENCE).
152 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 92,046 92,046
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
158 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION 1,868 1,868
RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL
BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER (S.
159 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 8,362 8,362
ANALYSIS.
160 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL 56,024 -10,000 46,024
INFORMATION CENTER
(DTIC).
..................... DTIC reduction........ [-10,000]
161 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD 6,908 6,908
ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND
EVALUATION.
162 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND 15,451 5,000 20,451
EVALUATION.
..................... DT&E transfer from SE. [5,000]
164 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 71,659 71,659
165 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM 4,083 4,083
ASSESSMENTS.
167 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS 5,306 5,306
SECURITY INITIATIVE
(DOSI).
168 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL 2,097 2,097
SUPPORT.
172 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION 8,394 8,394
OPERATIONS (IO)
CAPABILITIES.
175 0305193D8Z CYBER INTELLIGENCE....... 7,624 7,624
178 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT 43,247 43,247
AND TRAINING
TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2).
179 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA....... 37,712 37,712
180 0901598D8W MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS 607 607
WHS.
9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 54,914 54,914
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TOTAL. 913,028 -10,000 903,028
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
182 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY 7,552 7,552
SYSTEM (ESS).
183 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL 3,270 3,270
OUTREACH (RIO) AND
PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
INFORMATION MANA.
184 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN 287 287
ASSISTANCE SHARED
INFORMATION SYSTEM
(OHASIS).
185 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS 14,000 14,000
AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT.
186 0607310D8Z OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 1,955 1,955
DEVELOPMENT.
187 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY 13,250 13,250
COOPERATION MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-
TSCMIS).
188 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 13,026 13,026
DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT).
190 0607828J JOINT INTEGRATION AND 12,652 12,652
INTEROPERABILITY.
191 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID 3,061 3,061
SYSTEM (PDAS).
192 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY..... 72,726 72,726
194 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION 6,524 6,524
INFORMATION SHARING.
201 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND 512 512
SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT.
202 0302019K DEFENSE INFO 12,867 12,867
INFRASTRUCTURE
ENGINEERING AND
INTEGRATION.
203 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS-- 36,565 36,565
DCS.
204 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 13,144 13,144
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK (MEECN).
205 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE 1,060 1,060
(PKI).
206 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT 33,279 33,279
INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI).
207 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS 10,673 10,673
SECURITY PROGRAM.
208 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS 181,567 181,567
SECURITY PROGRAM.
210 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND 34,288 34,288
CONTROL SYSTEM.
211 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM 7,741 7,741
ORGANIZATION.
212 0303170K NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE 3,325 3,325
SERVICES (NCES).
213 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY 1,246 1,246
DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE
(DMDPO).
214 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM......... 5,147 5,147
216 0304210BB SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR 17,352 17,352
CONTINGENCIES.
220 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 3,658 3,658
221 0305125D8Z CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 9,752 9,752
PROTECTION (CIP).
225 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS...... 3,210 1,000 4,210
..................... CRRC extension........ [1,000]
227 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY........... 21,602 21,602
230 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 5,195 5,195
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
233 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 3,348 3,348
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
235 0305219BB MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV...... 641 641
238 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE 2,338 2,338
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
PROGRAM.
239 0305600D8Z INTERNATIONAL 4,372 4,372
INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY
AND ARCHITECTURES.
247 0708011S INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.. 24,691 24,691
248 0708012S LOGISTICS SUPPORT 4,659 4,659
ACTIVITIES.
249 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ--OJCS...... 3,533 3,533
250 1105219BB MQ-9 UAV................. 1,314 12,000 13,314
..................... Capability [12,000]
Improvements.
254 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS......... 156,561 156,561
256 1160405BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 7,705 7,705
INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
257 1160408BB SOF OPERATIONAL 42,620 42,620
ENHANCEMENTS.
261 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS.......... 17,970 17,970
262 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS......... 7,424 7,424
268 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES.... 2,206 2,206
271 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS......... 18,325 1,156 19,481
..................... CCFLIR--Transfer at [1,156]
USSOCOM Request.
274 1160489BB SOF GLOBAL VIDEO 3,304 3,304
SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES.
275 1160490BB SOF OPERATIONAL 16,021 16,021
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE.
275A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 3,773,704 3,773,704
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM 4,641,222 14,156 4,655,378
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL.
.....................
..................... UNDISTRIBUTED
276 ..................... UNDISTRIBUTED............ -100,000 -100,000
..................... DARPA undistributed [-100,000]
reduction.
..................... UNDISTRIBUTED TOTAL...... -100,000 -100,000
.....................
..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 17,667,108 142,156 17,809,264
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
DEFENSE
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND 75,720 75,720
EVALUATION.
2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND 48,423 48,423
EVALUATION.
3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST 62,157 62,157
ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES.
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TOTAL. 186,300 0 186,300
..................... TOTAL, OPERATIONAL TEST & 186,300 0 186,300
EVAL, DEFENSE.
.....................
..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 67,520,236 21,259 67,541,495
DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of
Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Line Program Element Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, ARMY
...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
87 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL 7,000 7,000
VEHICLES.
...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & 7,000 7,000
DEMONSTRATION TOTAL.
...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 7,000 7,000
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, NAVY
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
224A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 34,426 34,426
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 34,426 34,426
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL.
...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 34,426 34,426
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, AF
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
251A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 9,000 9,000
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 9,000 9,000
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL.
...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 9,000 9,000
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, DW
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
275A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 66,208 66,208
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM 66,208 66,208
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL.
...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 66,208 66,208
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
......................
...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 116,634 116,634
DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 888,114 195,900 1,084,014
Readiness funding increase....................... [195,900]
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 72,624 72,624
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 617,402 617,402
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 602,262 602,262
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 1,032,484 1,032,484
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 1,287,462 15,800 1,303,262
Readiness funding increase....................... [15,800]
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 3,559,656 209,900 3,769,556
Readiness funding increase....................... [209,900]
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 454,477 454,477
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 1,481,156 200,000 1,681,156
Readiness funding increase....................... [200,000]
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 7,278,154 7,278,154
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 2,754,712 2,754,712
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S..................... 425,271 425,271
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................ 185,064 -5,000 180,064
Unjustified growth............................... [-5,000]
170 COMBATANT COMMANDERS ANCILLARY MISSIONS............. 463,270 463,270
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 21,102,108 616,600 21,718,708
MOBILIZATION
180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY.................................. 360,240 360,240
190 ARMY PREPOSITIONING STOCKS.......................... 192,105 192,105
200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS............................. 7,101 7,101
MOBILIZATION TOTAL.................................. 559,446 0 559,446
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
210 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 115,992 115,992
220 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 52,323 52,323
230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING........................... 43,589 43,589
240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.............. 453,745 453,745
250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 1,034,495 1,034,495
260 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 1,016,876 1,016,876
270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 186,565 186,565
280 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 652,514 652,514
290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 485,500 485,500
300 EXAMINING........................................... 170,912 170,912
310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 251,523 251,523
320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 184,422 184,422
330 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 181,105 181,105
TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 4,829,561 0 4,829,561
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 690,089 690,089
360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES........................... 774,120 774,120
370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES......................... 651,765 651,765
380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT............................... 453,051 453,051
390 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 487,737 487,737
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 1,563,115 1,563,115
410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 326,853 326,853
420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 234,364 234,364
430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT............................... 1,212,091 1,212,091
440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES.............................. 243,540 243,540
450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 241,101 241,101
460 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 226,291 226,291
470 SUPPORT OF NATO OPERATIONS.......................... 426,651 426,651
480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS...................... 27,248 27,248
480A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,023,946 1,023,946
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL.................... 8,581,962 0 8,581,962
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................ 35,073,077 616,600 35,689,677
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 1,621 1,621
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 24,429 24,429
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 657,099 657,099
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 122,485 122,485
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 584,058 584,058
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 79,380 79,380
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 471,616 471,616
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 74,243 74,243
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 70,894 70,894
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 569,801 569,801
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 294,145 36,400 330,545
Readiness funding increase....................... [36,400]
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S..................... 51,853 51,853
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 3,001,624 36,400 3,038,024
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 10,735 10,735
140 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 24,197 24,197
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 10,304 10,304
160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 10,319 10,319
170 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 37,857 37,857
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 93,412 0 93,412
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............ 3,095,036 36,400 3,131,436
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 800,880 800,880
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 178,650 178,650
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 771,503 771,503
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 98,699 98,699
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 38,779 38,779
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 922,503 922,503
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 761,056 761,056
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 62,971 62,971
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 233,105 233,105
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 1,019,059 1,019,059
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 712,139 74,200 786,339
Readiness funding increase....................... [74,200]
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S..................... 1,013,715 1,013,715
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 6,613,059 74,200 6,687,259
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 10,812 10,812
140 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 1,551 1,551
150 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 78,284 78,284
160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 46,995 46,995
170 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 6,390 6,390
180 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 297,105 297,105
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 441,137 0 441,137
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................ 7,054,196 74,200 7,128,396
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 4,952,522 32,500 4,985,022
Readiness funding increase....................... [32,500]
020 FLEET AIR TRAINING.................................. 1,826,404 11,200 1,837,604
Readiness funding increase....................... [11,200]
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES...... 38,639 38,639
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT................... 90,030 90,030
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT................................. 362,700 362,700
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 915,881 915,881
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 35,838 608 36,446
Readiness funding increase....................... [608]
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 379,914 379,914
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 3,884,836 99,500 3,984,336
Readiness funding increase....................... [99,500]
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 734,852 61,400 796,252
Readiness funding increase....................... [61,400]
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 5,191,511 5,700 5,197,211
Readiness funding increase....................... [5,700]
120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT....................... 1,351,274 126,200 1,477,474
Readiness funding increase....................... [126,200]
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS............................... 701,316 701,316
140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE.................................. 97,710 97,710
150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE...................... 172,330 172,330
160 WARFARE TACTICS..................................... 454,682 454,682
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............ 328,406 328,406
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 946,429 946,429
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE............................... 142,249 142,249
200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................ 2,603 660 3,263
Readiness funding increase....................... [660]
210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................ 102,970 102,970
220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT......... 199,128 -3,000 196,128
Classified program decrease...................... [-3,000]
230 CRUISE MISSILE...................................... 92,671 92,671
240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE............................. 1,193,188 1,193,188
250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................. 105,985 105,985
260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE................................. 532,627 532,627
270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT........................ 304,160 304,160
280 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.............................. 1,011,528 1,011,528
290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 1,996,821 100,000 2,096,821
Readiness funding increase....................... [100,000]
300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 4,460,918 4,460,918
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 32,610,122 434,768 33,044,890
MOBILIZATION
310 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE....................... 331,576 331,576
320 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.................. 6,638 6,638
330 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS...................... 222,752 222,752
340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS............... 73,310 73,310
350 INDUSTRIAL READINESS................................ 2,675 2,675
360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT................................. 23,794 23,794
MOBILIZATION TOTAL.................................. 660,745 0 660,745
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
370 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 148,516 148,516
380 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 9,384 9,384
390 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS..................... 139,876 139,876
400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 630,069 630,069
410 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 9,294 9,294
420 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 169,082 169,082
430 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 164,368 164,368
440 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 241,733 241,733
450 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 139,815 139,815
460 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 94,632 94,632
470 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 51,373 51,373
TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 1,798,142 0 1,798,142
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
480 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 886,088 886,088
490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.................................. 13,131 13,131
500 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 115,742 115,742
510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 382,150 382,150
520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 268,403 268,403
530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 317,293 317,293
550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 207,128 207,128
570 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN.................... 295,855 295,855
580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 1,140,484 1,140,484
590 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT............. 52,873 52,873
600 COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS.............................. 27,587 27,587
610 SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS................ 75,728 75,728
620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE......................... 543,026 543,026
680 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES............. 4,965 4,965
680A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 545,775 545,775
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 4,876,228 0 4,876,228
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................ 39,945,237 434,768 40,380,005
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.................................. 837,012 837,012
020 FIELD LOGISTICS..................................... 894,555 894,555
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 223,337 56,000 279,337
Readiness funding increase....................... [56,000]
040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING............................. 97,878 97,878
050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION............ 774,619 774,619
060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 2,166,661 2,166,661
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 4,994,062 56,000 5,050,062
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
070 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 17,693 17,693
080 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 896 896
090 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 100,806 100,806
100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 46,928 46,928
110 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 356,426 356,426
120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 179,747 179,747
130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 52,255 52,255
140 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 23,138 23,138
TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 777,889 0 777,889
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 43,816 43,816
160 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 305,107 305,107
180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 87,500 87,500
180A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 46,276 46,276
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 482,699 0 482,699
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS........ 6,254,650 56,000 6,310,650
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 586,620 1,900 588,520
Readiness funding increase....................... [1,900]
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................ 7,008 7,008
040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 100,657 8,900 109,557
Readiness funding increase....................... [8,900]
050 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 305 305
060 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 3,927 3,927
070 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 75,933 75,933
080 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 601 601
090 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 44,364 44,364
100 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS............................... 15,477 15,477
110 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 115,608 115,608
120 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE................................. 1,967 1,967
130 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.............................. 43,726 43,726
140 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 69,011 69,011
150 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 109,604 109,604
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 1,174,808 10,800 1,185,608
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 2,905 2,905
170 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 14,425 14,425
180 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 2,485 2,485
190 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 3,129 3,129
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 22,944 0 22,944
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............ 1,197,752 10,800 1,208,552
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES.................................... 96,244 96,244
020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 17,581 17,581
030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 32,438 32,438
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 95,259 95,259
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 241,522 0 241,522
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 894 894
060 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 11,743 11,743
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 9,158 9,158
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 21,795 0 21,795
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RES.............. 263,317 0 263,317
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 3,295,814 220,000 3,515,814
Readiness funding increase....................... [220,000]
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES........................... 1,875,095 1,875,095
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)...... 1,559,109 30,000 1,589,109
Increase for ranges.............................. [30,000]
040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 5,956,304 190,000 6,146,304
Readiness funding increase....................... [190,000]
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 1,834,424 75,000 1,909,424
Readiness funding increase....................... [75,000]
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 2,779,811 2,779,811
070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................ 913,841 913,841
080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS....................... 916,837 916,837
100 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES......... 720,349 720,349
110 LAUNCH FACILITIES................................... 305,275 305,275
120 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS............................... 433,658 433,658
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT......... 1,146,016 -22,400 1,123,616
Classified program decrease...................... [-22,400]
140 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................ 231,830 231,830
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 21,968,363 492,600 22,460,963
MOBILIZATION
150 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.................................. 2,015,902 2,015,902
160 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS........................... 147,216 147,216
170 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 1,556,232 1,556,232
180 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 167,402 167,402
190 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 707,040 707,040
MOBILIZATION TOTAL.................................. 4,593,792 0 4,593,792
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
200 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 102,334 102,334
210 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 17,733 17,733
220 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).............. 94,600 94,600
230 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 217,011 217,011
240 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 800,327 800,327
250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 399,364 399,364
260 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 792,275 792,275
270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 248,958 248,958
280 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 106,741 106,741
290 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 319,331 20,000 339,331
Readiness funding increase....................... [20,000]
300 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 122,736 122,736
310 EXAMINING........................................... 3,679 3,679
320 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 137,255 137,255
330 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 176,153 176,153
340 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 67,018 67,018
TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 3,605,515 20,000 3,625,515
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
350 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................ 1,103,684 1,103,684
360 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES........................ 919,923 919,923
370 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 56,601 56,601
380 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 281,061 281,061
390 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 1,203,305 1,203,305
400 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 593,865 593,865
410 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 574,609 574,609
420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................ 1,028,600 1,028,600
430 CIVIL AIR PATROL.................................... 24,720 24,720
460 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT............................... 89,008 89,008
460A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,227,796 1,227,796
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 7,103,172 0 7,103,172
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE........... 37,270,842 512,600 37,783,442
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 1,857,951 1,857,951
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 224,462 224,462
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 521,182 521,182
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 89,704 8,700 98,404
Readiness funding increase....................... [8,700]
050 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 360,836 360,836
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 3,054,135 8,700 3,062,835
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 64,362 64,362
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 15,056 15,056
080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC).............. 23,617 23,617
090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)................ 6,618 6,618
100 AUDIOVISUAL......................................... 819 819
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL..... 110,472 0 110,472
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.......... 3,164,607 8,700 3,173,307
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS................................. 3,371,871 3,371,871
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 720,305 720,305
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 1,514,870 1,514,870
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 296,953 28,200 325,153
Readiness funding increase....................... [28,200]
050 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 597,303 597,303
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 6,501,302 28,200 6,529,502
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 32,117 32,117
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 32,585 32,585
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL.... 64,702 0 64,702
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG................. 6,566,004 28,200 6,594,204
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF............................... 472,239 472,239
020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND.......................... 5,261,463 -21,800 5,239,663
USSOCOM RSCC..................................... [-14,700]
USSOCOM NCR Contractor Support................... [-7,100]
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 5,733,702 -21,800 5,711,902
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
040 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY...................... 157,397 157,397
050 NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY......................... 84,899 84,899
TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 242,296 0 242,296
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
060 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS............................. 144,443 21,699 166,142
Starbase......................................... [21,699]
080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY....................... 612,207 612,207
090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.................. 1,378,606 1,378,606
110 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY.................... 763,091 763,091
120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.................. 1,326,243 1,326,243
140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY....................... 29,933 29,933
150 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY............................ 462,545 462,545
160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.............................. 222,979 222,979
170 DEFENSE POW/MIA OFFICE.............................. 21,594 21,594
180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY................. 788,389 -19,000 769,389
Regional centers for security centers-- [-12,000]
undistributed decrease...........................
Combating terrorism fellowship program........... [-7,000]
190 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE............................ 546,603 546,603
210 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.......... 35,151 35,151
220 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY..................... 438,033 438,033
240 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............ 2,713,756 30,000 2,743,756
Supplemental Impact Aid.......................... [25,000]
Disability Impact Aid............................ [5,000]
250 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.............................. 256,201 256,201
270 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT....................... 371,615 -273,300 98,315
Program decrease................................. [-273,300]
280 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.................. 2,010,176 -7,000 2,003,176
OUSD(P) program decrease......................... [-7,000]
290 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES.................... 616,572 616,572
290A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 14,283,558 25,000 14,308,558
Reduction to Operation Observant Compass......... [-15,000]
Increase to Operation Observant Compass.......... [40,000]
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL..... 27,021,695 -222,601 26,799,094
TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE...... 32,997,693 -244,401 32,753,292
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE... 13,606 13,606
010 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID....... 109,500 109,500
010 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT................ 528,455 528,455
010 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD................................ 256,031 256,031
050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY..................... 298,815 298,815
070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY..................... 316,103 316,103
090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE................ 439,820 439,820
110 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE.................. 10,757 10,757
130 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES....... 237,443 237,443
150 OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND....... 5,000 5,000
TOTAL, MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS................. 2,215,530 2,215,530
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE...................... 175,097,941 1,533,867 176,631,808
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 217,571 217,571
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 8,266 8,266
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 56,626 56,626
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 4,209,942 4,209,942
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 950,567 -7,000 943,567
NSHQ--Transfer at DoD Request.................... [-7,000]
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 474,288 474,288
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 1,349,152 136,300 1,485,452
BuckEye terrain data increase.................... [56,300]
Transfer from JIEDDO--Train the Force............ [80,000]
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 655,000 655,000
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 301,563 301,563
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 706,214 706,214
140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES............................... 11,519,498 11,519,498
150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM............... 60,000 60,000
160 RESET............................................... 2,240,358 2,240,358
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 22,749,045 129,300 22,878,345
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 4,601,356 4,601,356
380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT............................... 17,418 17,418
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 110,000 110,000
420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 94,820 94,820
430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT............................... 54,000 54,000
450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 250,000 250,000
480A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,402,994 1,402,994
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL.................... 6,530,588 0 6,530,588
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................ 29,279,633 129,300 29,408,933
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 6,995 6,995
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 2,332 2,332
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 608 608
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 33,000 33,000
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 42,935 0 42,935
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............ 42,935 0 42,935
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 29,314 29,314
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 1,494 1,494
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 15,343 15,343
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 1,549 1,549
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 64,504 64,504
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 31,512 31,512
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 42,179 42,179
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S..................... 11,996 11,996
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 240,826 0 240,826
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 1,480 1,480
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 1,480 0 1,480
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................ 199,371 0 199,371
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
010 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 2,735,603 2,735,603
020 INFRASTRUCTURE...................................... 278,650 278,650
030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 2,180,382 2,180,382
040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 626,550 626,550
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE TOTAL........................... 5,821,185 0 5,821,185
MINISTRY OF INTERIOR
060 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 1,214,995 1,214,995
080 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 54,696 54,696
090 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 626,119 626,119
MINISTRY OF INTERIOR TOTAL.......................... 1,895,810 0 1,895,810
DETAINEE OPS
110 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 7,225 7,225
140 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 2,500 2,500
DETAINEE OPS TOTAL.................................. 9,725 0 9,725
TOTAL, AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND............. 7,726,720 0 7,726,720
AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND
AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND
010 POWER............................................... 279,000 -29,000 250,000
Unjustified expenditure.......................... [-29,000]
AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND TOTAL............... 279,000 0 250,000
TOTAL, AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND TOTAL........ 279,000 -29,000 250,000
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 845,169 845,169
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES...... 600 600
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT................... 17,489 17,489
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT................................. 78,491 78,491
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 162,420 162,420
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 2,700 2,700
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 50,130 50,130
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 949,539 949,539
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 20,226 20,226
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 1,679,660 1,679,660
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS............................... 37,760 37,760
160 WARFARE TACTICS..................................... 25,351 25,351
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............ 20,045 20,045
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 1,212,296 1,212,296
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE............................... 10,203 10,203
250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................. 127,972 127,972
260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE................................. 221,427 221,427
290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 13,386 13,386
300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 110,940 110,940
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 5,585,804 0 5,585,804
MOBILIZATION
340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS............... 18,460 18,460
360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT................................. 227,033 227,033
MOBILIZATION TOTAL.................................. 245,493 0 245,493
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 50,269 50,269
430 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 5,400 5,400
TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 55,669 0 55,669
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
480 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 2,418 2,418
490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.................................. 516 516
510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 5,107 5,107
520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 1,411 1,411
530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 2,545 2,545
550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 153,427 153,427
580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 8,570 8,570
620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE......................... 1,425 1,425
680A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 5,608 5,608
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 181,027 0 181,027
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................ 6,067,993 0 6,067,993
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.................................. 992,190 992,190
020 FIELD LOGISTICS..................................... 559,574 559,574
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 570,000 570,000
060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 69,726 69,726
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 2,191,490 0 2,191,490
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
110 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 108,270 26,000 134,270
Transfer from JIEDDO--Train the Force............ [26,000]
TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 108,270 26,000 134,270
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL
150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 365,555 365,555
160 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 3,675 3,675
180A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 825 825
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 370,055 0 370,055
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS........ 2,669,815 26,000 2,695,815
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 17,196 17,196
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................ 200 200
040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 6,000 6,000
070 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 12,304 12,304
090 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 6,790 6,790
110 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 13,210 13,210
TOTAL, OPERATING FORCES............................. 55,700 0 55,700
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............ 55,700 0 55,700
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES.................................... 11,124 11,124
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 1,410 1,410
TOTAL, OPERATING FORCES............................. 12,534 0 12,534
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.......... 12,534 0 12,534
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 1,712,393 1,712,393
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES........................... 836,104 836,104
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)...... 14,118 14,118
040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 1,373,480 1,373,480
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 122,712 122,712
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 1,520,333 1,520,333
070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................ 31,582 31,582
080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS....................... 147,524 147,524
110 LAUNCH FACILITIES................................... 857 857
120 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS............................... 8,353 8,353
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT......... 50,495 50,495
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 5,886,185 0 5,886,185
MOBILIZATION
150 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.................................. 3,091,133 3,091,133
160 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS........................... 47,897 47,897
170 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 387,179 387,179
180 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 7,043 7,043
190 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 68,382 68,382
MOBILIZATION TOTAL.................................. 3,601,634 0 3,601,634
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
200 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 100 100
210 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 478 478
240 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 19,256 19,256
250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 12,845 12,845
260 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 731 731
270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 607 607
280 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 720 720
320 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 152 152
TRAINING AND RECRUITING TOTAL....................... 34,889 0 34,889
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
350 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................ 86,273 86,273
360 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES........................ 2,511 2,511
390 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 19,887 19,887
400 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 3,493 3,493
410 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 152,086 152,086
420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................ 269,825 269,825
460 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT............................... 117 117
460A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 16,558 16,558
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES TOTAL...................... 550,750 0 550,750
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE.................. 10,005,224 0 10,005,224
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 26,599 26,599
050 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 6,250 6,250
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 32,849 0 32,849
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.......... 32,849 0 32,849
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 22,200 22,200
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 22,200 0 22,200
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG................. 22,200 0 22,200
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND.......................... 2,222,868 7,000 2,229,868
NSHQ--Transfer at DoD Request.................... [7,000]
OPERATING FORCES TOTAL.............................. 2,277,917 7,000 2,284,917
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY....................... 27,781 27,781
090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.................. 45,746 45,746
120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.................. 76,348 76,348
140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY....................... 99,538 99,538
160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.............................. 9,620 9,620
180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY................. 1,950,000 1,950,000
240 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............ 100,100 100,100
280 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.................. 38,227 38,227
290 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES.................... 2,784 2,784
290A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,862,066 1,862,066
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES TOTAL..... 4,212,210 0 4,212,210
TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE...... 6,435,078 7,000 6,442,078
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE...................... 62,829,052 133,300 62,962,352
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS................... 130,399,881 -270,000 130,129,881
Permanent Change of Station Travel............... [-150,000]
Undistributed reduction consistent with pace of [-120,000]
drawdown.........................................
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS......... 130,399,881 -270,000 130,129,881
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS. 6,676,750 6,676,750
SUBTOTAL, MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND 6,676,750 0 6,676,750
CONTRIBUTIONS......................................
TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL........................... 137,076,631 -270,000 136,806,631
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2014 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS................... 9,689,307 9,689,307
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS......... 9,689,307 0 9,689,307
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS. 164,033 164,033
SUBTOTAL, MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND 164,033 0 164,033
CONTRIBUTIONS......................................
TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL........................... 9,853,340 0 9,853,340
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
010 PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS................ 25,158 25,158
TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............... 25,158 0 25,158
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
030 FUEL COSTS...................................... 61,731 61,731
TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE.......... 61,731 0 61,731
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
010 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA).................. 46,428 46,428
TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE....... 46,428 0 46,428
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
010 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA...................... 1,412,510 1,412,510
TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............... 1,412,510 0 1,412,510
TOTAL, ALL WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS................ 1,545,827 0 1,545,827
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
020 MPF MLP......................................... 134,917 -112,200 22,717
Navy requested adjustment.................... [-112,200]
030 POST DELIVERY AND OUTFITTING.................... 43,404 43,404
050 LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE.................... 116,784 116,784
060 DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS.................... 60,703 60,703
070 TAH MAINTENANCE................................. 19,809 19,809
080 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT........................ 56,058 56,058
090 READY RESERVE FORCE............................. 299,025 299,025
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND............ 730,700 -112,200 618,500
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
DHP O&M
010 IN-HOUSE CARE................................... 8,880,738 8,880,738
020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE............................. 15,842,732 15,842,732
030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT..................... 2,505,640 2,505,640
040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.......................... 1,450,619 1,450,619
050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES........................... 368,248 368,248
060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING.......................... 733,097 733,097
070 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS.................. 1,872,660 1,872,660
070A UNDISTRIBUTED, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.......... 0 218,000 218,000
Restore Tricare savings...................... [218,000]
SUBTOTAL, DHP O&M........................... 31,653,734 218,000 31,871,734
DHP RDT&E
080 R&D RESEARCH.................................... 9,162 9,162
090 R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT...................... 47,977 47,977
100 R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT........................ 291,156 291,156
110 R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION.................... 132,430 132,430
120 R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT..................... 161,674 161,674
130 R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT...................... 72,568 72,568
140 R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT.................... 14,646 14,646
SUBTOTAL, DHP RDT&E......................... 729,613 0 729,613
DHP PROCUREMENT
170 PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING......................... 89,404 89,404
180 PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION................ 377,577 377,577
190 PROC IEHR....................................... 204,200 204,200
SUBTOTAL, DHP PROCUREMENT................... 671,181 0 671,181
TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................... 33,054,528 218,000 33,272,528
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
01 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE......................... 451,572 451,572
02 RDT&E........................................... 604,183 604,183
03 PROCUREMENT..................................... 1,368 1,368
TOTAL, CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION...... 1,057,123 0 1,057,123
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
010 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES... 815,965 -5,840 810,125
Joint Interagency Task Force--West (PC3309).. [-3,000]
U.S. European Comman Counternarcotics [-1,640]
Hedquaters Support (PC2346)..................
U.S. Special Operations Forces Support to [-1,200]
U.S. European Command (PC6505)...............
030 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM................... 122,580 122,580
TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 938,545 -5,840 932,705
DEF............................................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
010 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE....................... 311,131 35,900 347,031
Program increase............................. [35,900]
030 PROCUREMENT..................................... 1,000 1,000
TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.......... 312,131 35,900 348,031
TOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................... 37,638,854 135,860 37,774,714
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
010 PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS................ 44,732 44,732
TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............... 44,732 0 44,732
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
030 FUEL COSTS...................................... 88,500 88,500
TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE.......... 88,500 0 88,500
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
010 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA).................. 131,678 131,678
TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE....... 131,678 0 131,678
TOTAL, ALL WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS................ 264,910 0 264,910
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
DHP O&M
010 IN-HOUSE CARE................................... 375,958 375,958
020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE............................. 382,560 382,560
030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT..................... 132,749 132,749
040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.......................... 2,238 2,238
050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES........................... 460 460
060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING.......................... 10,236 10,236
SUBTOTAL, DHP O&M........................... 904,201 0 904,201
TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................... 904,201 0 904,201
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
010 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES... 376,305 376,305
TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 376,305 0 376,305
DEF............................................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
010 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE....................... 10,766 10,766
TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.......... 10,766 0 10,766
TOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................... 1,556,182 0 1,556,182
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Senate
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request Senate Change Authorized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTIVE SERVICIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY ALASKA FT WAINWRIGHT Aviation Battalion Complex. 45,000 45,000
ARMY ALASKA FT WAINWRIGHT Aviation Storage Hangar.... 58,000 58,000
ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Fire Station............... 12,000 12,000
ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Headquarters Building...... 33,000 33,000
ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 73,000 73,000
ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 66,000 66,000
ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Runway..................... 12,000 12,000
ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Simulator Building......... 12,200 12,200
ARMY COLORADO FT CARSON, CO Central Energy Plant....... 34,000 34,000
ARMY FLORIDA EGLIN AFB Automated Sniper Field Fire 4,700 4,700
Range.
ARMY GA FT GORDON Adv Individual Training 61,000 61,000
Barracks Cplx, Ph2.
ARMY HAWAII FT SHAFTER Command and Control 75,000 75,000
Facility--Admin.
ARMY KANSAS FT LEAVENWORTH Simulations Center......... 17,000 17,000
ARMY KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY Battlefield Weather Support 4,800 4,800
Facility.
ARMY MARYLAND ABERDEEN PROVING GND Operations and Maintenance 21,000 21,000
Facilities.
ARMY MARYLAND FT DETRICK Hazardous Material Storage 4,600 4,600
Building.
ARMY MARYLAND FT DETRICK Entry Control Point........ 2,500 2,500
ARMY MISSOURI FT LEONARD WOOD Adv Individual Training 86,000 86,000
Barracks Cplx, Ph1.
ARMY MISSOURI FT LEONARD WOOD Simulator Building......... 4,700 4,700
ARMY NEW YORK U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY Cadet Barracks, Incr 2..... 42,000 42,000
ARMY NC FT BRAGG Command and Control 5,900 5,900
Facility.
ARMY TEXAS FT BLISS Control Tower.............. 10,800 10,800
ARMY TEXAS FT BLISS Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 36,000 36,000
Complex.
ARMY VIRGINIA JT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS Adv Individual Training 50,000 50,000
Barracks Cplx, Ph3.
ARMY WASHINGTON YAKIMA Automated Multipurpose 9,100 9,100
Machine Gun Range.
ARMY WASHINGTON JT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD Airfield Operations Complex 37,000 37,000
ARMY WASHINGTON JT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 79,000 79,000
ARMY WASHINGTON JT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD Aviation Battalion Complex. 28,000 28,000
ARMY KWAJALEIN KWAJALEIN ATOLL Pier....................... 63,000 63,000
ARMY WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED CLASSIFIED LOCATION Company Operations Complex. 33,000 33,000
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Minor Construction FY14.... 25,000 25,000
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design FY14... 41,575 41,575
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Host Nation Support FY14... 33,000 33,000
SUBTOTAL, ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 1,119,875 0 1,119,875
....................... .......................
NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
NAVY CALIFORNIA BARSTOW Engine Dynamometer Facility 14,998 14,998
NAVY CALIFORNIA CAMP PENDLETON, CA Ammunition Supply Point 13,124 13,124
Upgrade.
NAVY CALIFORNIA POINT MUGU Aircraft Engine Test Pads.. 7,198 7,198
NAVY CALIFORNIA POINT MUGU BAMS Consolidated 17,469 17,469
Maintenance Hangar.
NAVY CALIFORNIA PORT HUENEME Unaccompanied Housing 33,600 33,600
Conversion.
NAVY CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO Steam Plant 34,331 34,331
Decentralization.
NAVY CALIFORNIA TWENTYNINE PALMS, CA Camp Wilson Infrastructure 33,437 33,437
Upgrades.
NAVY CALIFORNIA CORONADO H-60 Trainer Facility...... 8,910 8,910
NAVY FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE P-8A Training & Parking 20,752 20,752
Apron Expansion.
NAVY FLORIDA KEY WEST Aircraft Crash/Rescue & 14,001 14,001
Fire Headquarters.
NAVY FLORIDA MAYPORT LCS Logistics Support 16,093 16,093
Facility.
NAVY GA ALBANY Weapons Storage and 15,600 15,600
Inspection Facility.
NAVY GA ALBANY CERS Dispatch Facility..... 1,010 1,010
NAVY GA SAVANNAH Townsend Bombing Range Land 61,717 61,717
Acq--Phase 1.
NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY Armory Addition and 12,952 12,952
Renovation.
NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY 3rd Radio Bn Maintenance/ 25,336 25,336
Operations Complex.
NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 31,820 31,820
Upgrades.
NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY Aircraft Maintenance 16,968 16,968
Expansion.
NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY Aviation Simulator 17,724 17,724
Modernization/Addition.
NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY MV-22 Parking Apron and 74,665 74,665
Infrastructure.
NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY MV-22 Hangar............... 57,517 57,517
NAVY HAWAII PEARL CITY Water Transmission Line.... 30,100 30,100
NAVY HAWAII PEARL HARBOR Drydock Waterfront Facility 22,721 22,721
NAVY HAWAII PEARL HARBOR Submarine Production 35,277 35,277
Support Facility.
NAVY ILLINOIS GREAT LAKES Unaccompanied Housing...... 35,851 35,851
NAVY MAINE BANGOR NCTAMS VLF Commercial Power 13,800 13,800
Connection.
NAVY MAINE KITTERY Structural Shops 11,522 11,522
Consolidation.
NAVY MARYLAND FT MEADE MARFORCYBERCOM HQ-OPS 83,988 83,988
Building.
NAVY NEVADA FALLON Wastewater Treatment Plant. 11,334 11,334
NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Operations Training Complex 22,515 22,515
NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Landfill--Phase 4.......... 20,795 20,795
NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Steam Decentralization-- 2,620 2,620
Camp Johnson.
NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Steam Decentralization-- 13,390 13,390
Hadnot Point.
NAVY NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC Steam Decentralization--BEQ 18,679 18,679
Nodes.
NAVY NC NEW RIVER Corrosion Control Hangar... 12,547 12,547
NAVY NC NEW RIVER CH-53K Maintenance Training 13,218 13,218
Facility.
NAVY NC NEW RIVER Regional Communication 20,098 20,098
Station.
NAVY OKLAHOMA TINKER AFB TACAMO E-6B Hangar......... 14,144 14,144
NAVY RHODE ISLAND NEWPORT Hewitt Hall Research Center 12,422 12,422
NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON Nuclear Power Operational 73,932 73,932
Training Facility.
NAVY VIRGINIA DAM NECK Aerial Target Operation 10,587 10,587
Consolidation.
NAVY VIRGINIA NORFOLK Pier 11 Power Upgrades for 3,380 3,380
CVN-78.
NAVY VIRGINIA QUANTICO ATC Transmitter/Receiver 3,630 3,630
Relocation.
NAVY VIRGINIA QUANTICO Fuller Road Improvements... 9,013 9,013
NAVY VIRGINIA QUANTICO Academic Instruction 25,731 25,731
Facility TECOM Schools.
NAVY VIRGINIA YORKTOWN Small Arms Ranges.......... 18,700 18,700
NAVY WASHINGTON WHIDBEY ISLAND EA-18G Facility 32,482 32,482
Improvements.
NAVY WASHINGTON WHIDBEY ISLAND P-8A Hangar and Training 85,167 85,167
Facilities.
NAVY WASHINGTON BREMERTON Integrated Water Treatment 18,189 18,189
Sys Dry Docks 3&4.
NAVY WASHINGTON KITSAP Explosives Handling Wharf 24,880 24,880
#2 (INC).
NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS BAMS Forward Operational & 61,702 61,702
Maintenance Hangar.
NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Aircraft Maintenance 85,673 -85,673 0
Hangar--North Ramp.
NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Modular Storage Magazines.. 63,382 63,382
NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS X-Ray Wharf Improvements... 53,420 53,420
NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Emergent Repair Facility 35,860 35,860
Expansion.
NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Dehumidified Supply Storage 17,170 17,170
Facility.
NAVY GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS Sierra Wharf Improvements.. 1,170 1,170
NAVY JAPAN YOKOSUKA Communication System 7,568 7,568
Upgrade.
NAVY JAPAN CAMP BUTLER Airfield Security Upgrades. 5,820 5,820
NAVY DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI Armory..................... 6,420 6,420
NAVY DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI Unaccompanied Housing...... 22,580 22,580
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 19,740 19,740
Construction.
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE MCON Design Funds.......... 89,830 89,830
SUBTOTAL, NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 1,700,269 -85,673 1,614,596
....................... .......................
AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
AF ARIZONA LUKE AFB F-35 Field Training 5,500 5,500
Detachment.
AF ARIZONA LUKE AFB F-35 Sq Ops/Aircraft 21,400 21,400
Maintenance Unit #3.
AF CALIFORNIA BEALE AFB Distributed Common Ground 62,000 62,000
Station Ops Bldg.
AF FLORIDA TYNDALL AFB F-22 Munitions Storage 9,100 9,100
Complex.
AF HAWAII JT BASE PEARL HARBOR- C-17 Modernize Hgr 35, 4,800 4,800
HICKAM Docks 1&2.
AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A 1-Bay Maintenance 32,000 32,000
Hangar (Air Force
Requested Change).
AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A 2-Bay Corrosion/Fuel 82,000 82,000
Hangar (Air Force
Requested Change).
AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A 3-Bay General 80,000 80,000
Purpose Maintenance Hangar
(Air Force Requested
Change).
AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A ADAL Flight 2,150 2,150
Simulator Buildings (Air
Force Requested Change).
AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A Alter Aircraft 2,200 2,200
Parking Apron (Air Force
Requested Change).
AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A Alter Apron Fuels 12,800 12,800
Distribution Systems (Air
Force Requested Change).
AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A Alter Miscellaneous 970 970
Facilities (Air Force
Requested Change).
AF KANSAS MCCONNELL AFB KC-46A Pipeline Student 7,000 7,000
Dormitory (Air Force
Requested Change).
AF KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY 19th Air Support Operations 8,000 8,000
Sqdrn Expansion.
AF MARYLAND FT MEADE CYBERCOM Joint Operations 85,000 85,000
Center, Increment 1.
AF MARYLAND JT BASE ANDREWS Helicopter Operations 30,000 30,000
Facility.
AF MISSOURI WHITEMAN AFB WSA MOP Igloos and Assembly 5,900 5,900
Facility.
AF NEBRASKA OFFUTT AFB USSTRATCOM Replacement 136,000 136,000
Facility, Incr 3.
AF NEVADA NELLIS AFB Dormitory (240 RM)......... 35,000 35,000
AF NEVADA NELLIS AFB F-35 Alt Mission Equip 5,000 5,000
(AME) Storage.
AF NEVADA NELLIS AFB F-35 Parts Store........... 9,100 9,100
AF NEVADA NELLIS AFB F-35 Fuel Cell Hangar...... 9,400 9,400
AF NEVADA NELLIS AFB Add RPA Weapons School 20,000 20,000
Facility.
AF NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB Airmen and Family Readiness 5,500 5,500
Center.
AF NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB Satellite Dining Facility.. 6,600 6,600
AF NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB Dormitory (144 RM)......... 22,000 22,000
AF NEW MEXICO HOLLOMAN AFB F-16 Aircraft Covered 2,250 2,250
Washrack and Pad.
AF NEW MEXICO KIRTLAND AFB Nuclear Systems Wing & 30,500 30,500
Sustainment Center (Ph.
AF NORTH DAKOTA MINOT AFB B-52 ADAL Aircraft 15,530 15,530
Maintenance Unit.
AF NORTH DAKOTA MINOT AFB B-52 Munitions Storage 8,300 8,300
Igloos.
AF OKLAHOMA TINKER AFB KC-46A Land Acquisition.... 8,600 8,600
AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC-46A FTU ADAL Fuel 3,350 3,350
Systems Maintenance Dock
For Hangar (Air Force
Requested Change).
AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC-46A FTU ADAL Squadron 7,400 7,400
Operations/AMU (Air Force
Requested Change).
AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC-46A FTU FTC Simulator 12,600 12,600
Facility (Air Force
Requested Change).
AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC-46A FTU Fuselage Trainer 6,300 6,300
(Air Force Requested
Change).
AF OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB KC-46A Renovate Facility 1,200 1,200
for 97 OG and 97 MXTS (Air
Force Requested Change).
AF TEXAS FT BLISS F-16 BAK 12/14 Aircraft 3,350 3,350
Arresting System.
AF UTAH HILL AFB Fire Crash Rescue Station.. 18,500 18,500
AF UTAH HILL AFB F-35 Aircraft Mx Unit 13,500 13,500
Hangar 45E Ops #1.
AF VIRGINIA JT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS 4-Bay Conventional 4,800 4,800
Munitions Inspection Bldg.
AF GREENLAND THULE AB Thule Consolidation, Phase 43,904 43,904
2.
AF GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PAR--Tanker GP Mx Hangar/ 132,600 -132,600 0
AMU/Sqd Ops.
AF GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PAR--Fuel Sys Hardened 20,000 -20,000 0
Bldgs.
AF GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PAR--Strike Tactical 10,530 10,530
Missile Mxs Facility.
AF GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PRTC RED HORSE Airfield 8,500 8,500
Operations Facility.
AF GUAM JT REGION MARIANAS PRTC SF Fire Rescue & 4,600 4,600
Emergency Mgt.
AF MARIANA ISLANDS SAIPAN PAR--Maintenance Facility.. 2,800 2,800
AF MARIANA ISLANDS SAIPAN PAR--Airport POL/Bulk 18,500 18,500
Storage AST.
AF MARIANA ISLANDS SAIPAN PAR--Hazardous Cargo Pad... 8,000 8,000
AF UNITED KINGDOM ROYAL AF LAKENHEATH Guardian Angel Operations 22,047 -22,047 0
Facility.
AF UNITED KINGDOM CROUGHTON RAF Main Gate Complex.......... 12,000 -12,000 0
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE KC-46A MOB #1 Facility 192,700 -192,700 0
Projects.
....................... ....................... Air Force Requested Change. [-192,700]
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE KC-46A FTU Facility 63,000 -63,000 0
Projects.
....................... ....................... Air Force Requested Change. [-63,000]
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 20,448 20,448
Construction.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning & Design.......... 11,314 11,314
SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 1,156,573 -192,377 964,196
....................... .......................
DEFENSE-WIDE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
DEFW BELGIUM BRUSSELS NATO Headquarters Facility. 38,513 38,513
DEFW BELGIUM BRUSSELS NATO Headquarters Fit-Out.. 29,100 29,100
DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Energy Conservation 150,000 150,000
Investment PRGM.
DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Contingency Construction... 10,000 10,000
DISA HAWAII FORD ISLAND DISA Pacific Facility 2,615 2,615
Upgrades.
DLA CALIFORNIA DEFENSE DIST DEPOT- General Purpose Warehouse.. 37,554 37,554
TRACY
DLA CALIFORNIA MIRAMAR Replace Fuel Pipeline...... 6,000 6,000
DLA FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE Replace Fuel Pipeline...... 7,500 7,500
DLA FLORIDA PANAMA CITY Replace Ground Vehicle 2,600 2,600
Fueling Facility.
DLA FLORIDA TYNDALL AFB Replace Fuel Pipeline...... 9,500 9,500
DLA GA MOODY AFB Replace Ground Vehicle 3,800 3,800
Fueling Facility.
DLA GA HUNTER ARMY AIRFIELD Replace Fuel Island........ 13,500 13,500
DLA HAWAII JT BASE PEARL HARBOR- Alter Warehouse Space...... 2,800 2,800
HICKAM
DLA NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX- Replace Fuel Distribution 10,000 10,000
LAKEHURST Components.
DLA NEW MEXICO HOLLOMAN AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel System 21,400 21,400
DLA NORTH DAKOTA MINOT AFB Replace Fuel Pipeline...... 6,400 6,400
DLA OKLAHOMA ALTUS AFB Replace Refueler Parking... 2,100 2,100
DLA OKLAHOMA TINKER AFB Replace Fuel Distribution 36,000 36,000
Facilities.
DLA PENNSYLVANIA DEF DIST DEPOT NEW Upgrade Public Safety 5,900 5,900
CUMBERLAND Facility.
DLA PENNSYLVANIA DEF DIST DEPOT NEW Upgrade Hazardous Material 3,100 3,100
CUMBERLAND Warehouse.
DLA TENNESSEE ARNOLD AF BASE Replace Ground Vehicle 2,200 2,200
Fueling Facility.
DLA VIRGINIA DEF DIST DEPOT RICHMOND Operations Center Phase 1.. 87,000 87,000
DLA WASHINGTON WHIDBEY ISLAND Replace Fuel Pier 10,000 10,000
Breakwater.
DLA JAPAN ATSUGI Replace Ground Vehicle 4,100 4,100
Fueling Facility.
DLA JAPAN IWAKUNI Construct Hydrant Fuel 34,000 34,000
System.
DLA JAPAN YOKOSUKA Upgrade Fuel Pumps......... 10,600 10,600
DLA UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL Replace Fuel Storage....... 17,732 -17,732 0
DODEA GA FT BENNING Faith Middle School 6,031 6,031
Addition.
DODEA GA FT BENNING White Elemtary School 37,304 37,304
Replacement.
DODEA GA FT STEWART, GA Diamond Elementary School 44,504 44,504
Replacement.
DODEA KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY Marshall Elementary School 38,591 38,591
Replacement.
DODEA KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY Fort Campbell High School 59,278 59,278
Replacement.
DODEA KENTUCKY FT KNOX Consolidate/Replace Van 38,023 38,023
Voorhis-Mudge ES.
DODEA MASSACHUSETTS HANSCOM AFB Hanscom Primary School 36,213 36,213
Replacement.
DODEA NC FT BRAGG Consolidate/Replace Pope 37,032 37,032
Holbrook Elementary.
DODEA SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFT Bolden Elementary/Middle 41,324 41,324
School Replacement.
DODEA VIRGINIA QUANTICO Quantico Middle/High School 40,586 40,586
Replacement.
DODEA GERMANY KAISERLAUTERN AB Kaiserslautern Elementary 49,907 -49,907 0
School Replacement.
DODEA GERMANY RAMSTEIN AB Ramstein High School 98,762 -98,762 0
Replacement.
DODEA GERMANY WEISBADEN Hainerberg Elementary 58,899 -58,899 0
School Replacement.
DODEA GERMANY WEISBADEN Wiesbaden Middle School 50,756 -50,756 0
Replacement.
DODEA JAPAN KADENA AB Kadena Middle School 38,792 38,792
Addition/Renovation.
DODEA KOREA CAMP WALKER Daegu Middle/High School 52,164 52,164
Replacement.
DODEA UNITED KINGDOM ROYAL AF LAKENHEATH Lakenheath High School 69,638 -69,638 0
Replacement.
MDA ALASKA CLEAR AFS BMDS Upgrade Early Warning 17,204 17,204
Radar.
MDA ALASKA FT GREELY Mechanical-Electrical Bldg 82,000 82,000
Missile Field #1.
MDA ROMANIA DEVESELU, ROMANIA Aegis Ashore Missile Def 85,000 85,000
Sys Cmplx, Increm. 2.
MDA WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED CLASSIFIED LOCATION AN/TPY-2 Radar Site........ 15,000 15,000
NSA MARYLAND FT MEADE NSAW Recapitalize Building 58,000 58,000
#1/Site M Inc 2.
NSA MARYLAND FT MEADE High Performance Computing 431,000 -50,000 381,000
Capacity Inc 3.
SOCOM CALIFORNIA BRAWLEY SOF Desert Warfare Training 23,095 23,095
Center.
SOCOM COLORADO FT CARSON, CO SOF Group Support Battalion 22,282 22,282
SOCOM FLORIDA HURLBURT FIELD SOF ADD/ALTER Operations 7,900 7,900
Facility.
SOCOM FLORIDA KEY WEST SOF Boat Docks............. 3,600 3,600
SOCOM KENTUCKY FT CAMPBELL, KY SOF Group Special Troops 26,342 26,342
Battalion.
SOCOM NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC SOF Performance Resiliency 14,400 14,400
Center.
SOCOM NC CAMP LEJEUNE, NC SOF Sustainment Training 28,977 28,977
Complex.
SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Upgrade Training 14,719 14,719
Facility.
SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Engineer Training 10,419 10,419
Facility.
SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Civil Affairs Battalion 37,689 37,689
Annex.
SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Language and Cultural 64,606 64,606
Center.
SOCOM NC FT BRAGG SOF Combat Medic Skills 7,600 7,600
Sustain. Course Bldg.
SOCOM VIRGINIA DAM NECK SOF Human Performance 11,147 11,147
Center.
SOCOM VIRGINIA JT EXP BASE LITTLE SOF LOGSU Two Operations 30,404 30,404
CREEK--STORY Facility.
SOCOM JAPAN TORRI COMMO STATION SOF Facility Augmentation.. 71,451 71,451
SOCOM UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF Squadron Operations 11,652 -11,652 0
Facility.
SOCOM UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF Hangar/AMU............. 24,371 -24,371 0
SOCOM UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF Airfiled Pavements..... 24,077 -24,077 0
SOCOM UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF MRSP and Parts Storage. 6,797 -6,797 0
TMA KENTUCKY FT KNOX Ambulatory Health Center... 265,000 -190,000 75,000
TMA MARYLAND ABERDEEN PROVING GND Public Health Command Lab 210,000 -135,000 75,000
Replacement.
TMA MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL Mech & Electrical 46,800 46,800
Improvements.
TMA MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL Parking Garage............. 20,000 20,000
TMA MARYLAND FT DETRICK USAMRIID Replacement Stage 13,000 13,000
1, Incr 8.
TMA MARYLAND JT BASE ANDREWS Ambulatory Care Center Inc 76,200 -38,100 38,100
2.
TMA NEW MEXICO HOLLOMAN AFB Medical Clinic Replacement. 60,000 60,000
TMA TEXAS FT BLISS Hospital Replacement Incr 5 252,100 -152,100 100,000
TMA TEXAS JT BASE SAN ANTONIO SAMMC Hyperbaric Facility 12,600 12,600
Addition.
TMA BAHRAIN ISLAND SW ASIA Medical/Dental Clinic 45,400 45,400
Replacement.
TMA GERMANY RHINE ORDNANCE BARRACKS Medical Center Replacement, 151,545 -75,000 76,545
Incr 3.
WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON PFPA Support Operations 14,800 14,800
Center.
WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON Boundary Channel Access 6,700 6,700
Control Point.
WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON Army Navy Drive Tour Bus 1,850 -1,850 0
Drop Off.
WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON Raven Rock Exterior Cooling 4,100 4,100
Tower.
WHS VIRGINIA PENTAGON Raven Rock Administrative 32,000 32,000
Facility Upgrade.
DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 3,000 3,000
Construction.
DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 7,430 7,430
Construction.
DODEA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 5,409 5,409
Construction.
MDA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 2,000 2,000
Construction.
NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 1,500 1,500
Construction.
SOCOM WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 5,170 5,170
Construction.
TJS WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Exercise Related Minor 9,730 9,730
Construction.
TMA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 9,578 9,578
Construction.
DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 50,192 50,192
DODEA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 75,905 75,905
MDA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning & Design.......... 10,891 10,891
NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 57,053 57,053
SOCOM WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 36,866 36,866
WHS WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 6,931 6,931
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-WIDE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 3,985,300 -1,054,641 2,930,659
SUBTOTAL, ACTIVE SERVICES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 7,962,017 -1,332,691 6,629,326
....................... .......................
....................... .......................
NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY ALABAMA DECATUR National Guard Readiness 4,000 4,000
Center Add/Alt.
ARMY ARKANSAS FT CHAFFEE Scout/RECCE Gunnery Complex 21,000 21,000
ARMY FLORIDA PINELLAS PARK Ready Building............. 5,700 5,700
ARMY ILLINOIS KANKAKEE Readiness Center........... 14,000 14,000
ARMY ILLINOIS KANKAKEE Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 28,000 28,000
ARMY MASSACHUSETTS CAMP EDWARDS Enlisted Barracks, 19,000 19,000
Transient Training Add.
ARMY MICHIGAN CAMP GRAYLING Enlisted Barracks, 17,000 17,000
Transient Training.
ARMY MINNESOTA STILLWATER Readiness Center........... 17,000 17,000
ARMY MISSISSIPPI CAMP SHELBY Water Supply/Treatment 3,000 3,000
Building, Potable.
ARMY MISSISSIPPI PASCAGOULA Readiness Center........... 4,500 4,500
ARMY MISSOURI MACON Vehicle Maintenance Shop... 9,100 9,100
ARMY MISSOURI WHITEMAN AFB Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 5,000 5,000
ARMY NEW YORK NEW YORK Readiness Center Add/Alt... 31,000 31,000
ARMY OHIO RAVENNA ARMY AMMU PLANT Sanitary Sewer............. 5,200 5,200
ARMY PENNSYLVANIA FT INDIANTOWN GAP Aircraft Maintenance 40,000 40,000
Instructional Building.
ARMY SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE Vehicle Maintenance Shop... 13,000 13,000
ARMY SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE Readiness Center........... 13,000 13,000
ARMY TEXAS FT WORTH Armed Forces Reserve Center 14,270 14,270
Add.
ARMY WYOMING AFTON National Guard Readiness 10,200 10,200
Center.
ARMY PUERTO RICO CAMP SANTIAGO Maneuver Area Training & 5,600 5,600
Equipment Site Addit.
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 12,240 12,240
Construction.
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 29,005 29,005
SUBTOTAL, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 320,815 0 320,815
....................... .......................
AIR NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
AF ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM IAP Add to and Alter 8,500 8,500
Distributed Ground Station
F.
AF INDIANA HULMAN REGIONAL AIRPORT Add/Alter Bldg 37 For Dist 7,300 7,300
Common Ground Sta.
AF MARYLAND FT MEADE 175th Network Warfare 4,000 4,000
Squadron Facility.
AF MARYLAND MARTIN STATE AIRPORT CYBER/ISR Facility......... 8,000 8,000
AF MONTANA GREAT FALLS IAP Intra-Theater Airlift 22,000 22,000
Conversion.
AF NEW YORK FT DRUM, NEW YORK MQ-9 Flight Training Unit 4,700 4,700
Hangar.
AF OHIO SPRINGFIELD BECKLEY-MAP Alter Intelligence 7,200 7,200
Operations Facility.
AF PENNSYLVANIA FT INDIANTOWN GAP Communications Operations 7,700 7,700
and Training Facili.
AF RHODE ISLAND QUONSET STATE AIRPORT C-130J Flight Simulator 6,000 6,000
Training Facility.
AF TENNESSEE MCGHEE-TYSON AIRPORT TEC Expansion- Dormitory & 18,000 18,000
Classroom Facility.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 13,000 13,000
Construction.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 13,400 13,400
SUBTOTAL, AIR NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 119,800 0 119,800
SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 440,615 0 440,615
....................... .......................
....................... .......................
RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY CALIFORNIA CAMP PARKS Army Reserve Center........ 17,500 17,500
ARMY CALIFORNIA FT HUNTER LIGGETT TASS Training Center (TTC). 16,500 16,500
ARMY MARYLAND BOWIE Army Reserve Center........ 25,500 25,500
ARMY NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX- Consolidated Dining 13,400 13,400
LAKEHURST Facility.
ARMY NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX- Central Issue Facility..... 7,900 7,900
LAKEHURST
ARMY NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX- Automated Multipurpose 9,500 9,500
LAKEHURST Machine Gun (MPMG).
ARMY NEW JERSEY JT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX- Modified Record Fire Range. 5,400 5,400
LAKEHURST
ARMY NEW YORK BULLVILLE Army Reserve Center........ 14,500 14,500
ARMY NC FT BRAGG Army Reserve Center........ 24,500 24,500
ARMY WISCONSIN FT MCCOY Access Control Point/Mail/ 17,500 17,500
Freight Center.
ARMY WISCONSIN FT MCCOY NCO Academy Dining Facility 5,900 5,900
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 1,748 1,748
Construction.
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 14,212 14,212
SUBTOTAL, ARMY RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 174,060 0 174,060
....................... .......................
NAVY RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
NAVY CALIFORNIA MARCH AFB NOSC Moreno Valley Reserve 11,086 11,086
Training Center.
NAVY MISSOURI KANSAS CITY Reserve Training Center-- 15,020 15,020
Belton, Missouri.
NAVY TENNESSEE MEMPHIS Reserve Boat Maintenance 4,330 4,330
and Storage Facility.
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE USMCR Planning and Design.. 1,040 1,040
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE MCNR Planning & Design..... 1,500 1,500
SUBTOTAL, NAVY RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 32,976 0 32,976
....................... .......................
AIR FORCE RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
AF CALIFORNIA MARCH AFB Joint Regional Deployment 19,900 19,900
Processing Center,.
AF FLORIDA HOMESTEAD AFS Entry Control Complex...... 9,800 9,800
AF OKLAHOMA TINKER AFB Air Control Group Squadron 12,200 12,200
Operations.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 1,530 1,530
Construction.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 2,229 2,229
SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 45,659 0 45,659
SUBTOTAL, RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 252,695 0 252,695
....................... .......................
TOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION MAJOR ACCOUNTS 8,655,327 -1,332,691 7,322,636
....................... .......................
CHEM-DEMIL
ARMY KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS ARMY DEPOT Ammunition Demilitarization 122,536 122,536
Facility, Ph XIV.
SUBTOTAL, CHEM-DEMIL 122,536 0 122,536
....................... .......................
NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM
DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC NATO SECURITY Nato Security Investment 239,700 239,700
INVESTMENT PRGM PRGM.
SUBTOTAL, NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 239,700 0 239,700
....................... .......................
MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
ARMY FAMILY HOUSING
ARMY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
ARMY WISCONSIN FT MCCOY Family Housing New 23,000 23,000
Construction (56 units).
ARMY GERMANY SOUTH CAMP VILSECK Family Housing New 16,600 -16,600 0
Construction (29 units).
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Family Housing P & D....... 4,408 4,408
SUBTOTAL, ARMY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION 44,008 -16,600 27,408
ARMY FAMILY HOUSING O&M
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities.................. 96,907 96,907
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Management Account......... 54,433 54,433
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Services................... 13,536 13,536
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings................ 33,125 33,125
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Miscellaneous.............. 646 646
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leased Housing............. 180,924 180,924
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real 107,639 107,639
Property Facilities.
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Military Housing 25,661 25,661
Privitization Initiative.
SUBTOTAL, ARMY FAMILY HOUSING O&M 512,871 0 512,871
SUBTOTAL, ARMY FAMILY HOUSING 556,879 -16,600 540,279
....................... .......................
NAVY FAMILY HOUSING
NAVY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Improvements............... 68,969 68,969
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Design..................... 4,438 4,438
SUBTOTAL, NAVY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION 73,407 0 73,407
NAVY FAMILY HOUSING O&M
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities Account.......... 94,313 94,313
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 21,073 21,073
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Management Account......... 60,782 60,782
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Miscellaneous Account...... 362 362
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Services Account........... 20,596 20,596
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leasing.................... 74,962 74,962
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real 90,122 90,122
Property.
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Privatization Support Costs 27,634 27,634
SUBTOTAL, NAVY FAMILY HOUSING O&M 389,844 0 389,844
SUBTOTAL, NAVY FAMILY HOUSING 463,251 0 463,251
....................... .......................
AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING
AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Improvements............... 72,093 72,093
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 4,267 4,267
SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION 76,360 0 76,360
AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING O&M
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities Account.......... 70,532 70,532
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Management Account......... 53,044 53,044
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Services Account........... 16,862 16,862
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 39,470 39,470
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Miscellaneous Account...... 1,954 1,954
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leasing.................... 54,514 54,514
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance (RPMA RPMC).... 110,786 110,786
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Housing Privatization...... 41,436 41,436
SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING O&M 388,598 0 388,598
SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING 464,958 0 464,958
....................... .......................
DEFENSE-WIDE FAMILY HOUSING
DEFENSE-WIDE FAMILY HOUSING O&M
DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities Account.......... 288 288
NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Utilities Account.......... 12 12
DIA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 3,196 3,196
DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 20 20
DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Services Account........... 32 32
DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Management Account......... 418 418
NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 67 67
DIA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leasing.................... 40,433 40,433
NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Leasing.................... 10,994 10,994
DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real 311 311
Property.
NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real 74 74
Property.
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-WIDE FAMILY HOUSING O&M 55,845 0 55,845
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-WIDE FAMILY HOUSING 55,845 0 55,845
....................... .......................
DOD FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND
DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE Family Housing Improvement 1,780 1,780
Fund.
SUBTOTAL, DOD FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND 1,780 0 1,780
....................... .......................
TOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING 1,542,713 -16,600 1,526,113
....................... .......................
BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE
ARMY BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC BRAC, ARMY Base Realignment and 180,401 180,401
Closure.
SUBTOTAL, ARMY BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE 180,401 0 180,401
....................... .......................
NAVY BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC BRAC, NAVY Base Realignment & Closure. 108,300 108,300
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON-172: NWS Seal Beach, 5,766 5,766
Concord, CA.
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON-138: NAS Brunswick, ME. 993 993
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON-157: MCSA Kansas City, 40 40
MO.
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON-84: JRB Willow Grove & 1,216 1,216
Cambria Reg AP.
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON-100: Planing, Design 7,277 7,277
and Management.
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DON-101: Various Locations. 20,988 20,988
SUBTOTAL, NAVY BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE 144,580 0 144,580
....................... .......................
AIR FORCE BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPEC WORLDWIDE DoD BRAC Activities--AF.... 126,376 126,376
SUBTOTAL, AIR FORCE BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE 126,376 0 126,376
....................... .......................
TOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE 451,357 0 451,357
....................... .......................
TOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SECONDARY ACCOUNTS 2,356,306 -16,600 2,339,706
....................... .......................
GRAND TOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 11,011,633 -1,349,291 9,662,342
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Program FY 2014 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY & ENERGY RELIABILITY
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY & ENERGY RELIABILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY & ENERGY RESTORATION (HS)..... 16,000 -16,000 0
Not a defense function........................... [-16,000]
TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY & ENERGY RELIABILITY.......... 16,000 0 0
NUCLEAR ENERGY
IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY.................. 94,000 94,000
TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY..................................... 94,000 0 94,000
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAMS AND MAJOR ALTERATIONS
B61 LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM.......................... 537,044 537,044
W76 LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM.......................... 235,382 235,382
W78/88-1 LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM..................... 72,691 72,691
W88 ALT 370......................................... 169,487 169,487
TOTAL, STOCKPILE ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN................ 1,014,604 0 1,014,604
STOCKPILE SYSTEMS
B61 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS............................... 83,536 83,536
W76 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS............................... 47,187 47,187
W78 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS............................... 54,381 54,381
W80 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS............................... 50,330 50,330
B83 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS............................... 54,948 54,948
W87 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS............................... 101,506 101,506
W88 STOCKPILE SYSTEMS............................... 62,600 62,600
TOTAL, STOCKPILE SYSTEMS.............................. 454,488 0 454,488
WEAPONS DISMANTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.......................... 49,264 49,264
STOCKPILE SERVICES
PRODUCTION SUPPORT.................................. 321,416 321,416
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT.................... 26,349 26,349
R&D CERTIFICATION AND SAFETY........................ 191,259 191,259
MANAGEMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND PRODUCTION.............. 214,187 214,187
PLUTONIUM SUSTAINMENT............................... 156,949 156,949
TOTAL, STOCKPILE SERVICES............................. 910,160 0 910,160
TOTAL, DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK.......................... 2,428,516 0 2,428,516
CAMPAIGNS:
SCIENCE CAMPAIGN
ADVANCED CERTIFICATION.............................. 54,730 54,730
PRIMARY ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES..................... 109,231 109,231
DYNAMIC MATERIALS PROPERTIES........................ 116,965 116,965
ADVANCED RADIOGRAPHY................................ 30,509 30,509
SECONDARY ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES................... 86,467 86,467
TOTAL, SCIENCE CAMPAIGN............................... 397,902 0 397,902
ENGINEERING CAMPAIGN
ENHANCED SURETY..................................... 51,771 51,771
WEAPON SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGY.... 23,727 23,727
NUCLEAR SURVIVABILITY............................... 19,504 19,504
ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE............................... 54,909 54,909
TOTAL, ENGINEERING CAMPAIGN........................... 149,911 0 149,911
INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION IGNITION AND HIGH YIELD
CAMPAIGN
IGNITION............................................ 80,245 80,245
SUPPORT OF OTHER STOCKPILE PROGRAMS................. 15,001 15,001
DIAGNOSTICS, CRYOGENICS AND EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT.... 59,897 59,897
PULSED POWER INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION............ 5,024 5,024
JOINT PROGRAM IN HIGH ENERGY DENSITY LABORATORY 8,198 8,198
PLASMAS............................................
FACILITY OPERATIONS AND TARGET PRODUCTION........... 232,678 232,678
TOTAL, INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION AND HIGH YIELD 401,043 0 401,043
CAMPAIGN.............................................
ADVANCED SIMULATION AND COMPUTING CAMPAIGN............ 564,329 564,329
READINESS CAMPAIGN
COMPONENT MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT................. 106,085 106,085
TRITIUM READINESS................................... 91,695 91,695
TOTAL, READINESS CAMPAIGN............................. 197,780 0 197,780
TOTAL, CAMPAIGNS........................................ 1,710,965 0 1,710,965
NUCLEAR PROGRAMS
NUCLEAR OPERATIONS CAPABILITY......................... 265,937 265,937
CAPABILITIES BASED INVESTMENTS........................ 39,558 39,558
CONSTRUCTION:
12-D-301 TRU WASTE FACILITIES, LANL................. 26,722 26,722
11-D-801 TA-55 REINVESTMENT PROJECT PHASE 2, LANL... 30,679 30,679
07-D-220 RADIOACTIVE LIQUID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY 55,719 55,719
UPGRADE PROJECT, LANL..............................
06-D-141 PED/CONSTRUCTION, URANIUM CAPABILITIES 325,835 325,835
REPLACEMENT PROJECT Y-12...........................
TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION................................... 438,955 0 438,955
TOTAL, NUCLEAR PROGRAMS................................. 744,450 0 744,450
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET
OPERATIONS AND EQUIPMENT.............................. 122,072 122,072
PROGRAM DIRECTION..................................... 97,118 97,118
TOTAL, SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET...................... 219,190 0 219,190
SITE STEWARDSHIP
NUCLEAR MATERIALS INTEGRATION......................... 17,679 17,679
CORPORATE PROJECT MANAGEMENT.......................... 13,017 13,017
MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM..... 14,531 14,531
ENTERPRISE INFRASTRUCTURE
SITE OPERATIONS..................................... 1,112,455 1,112,455
SITE SUPPORT........................................ 109,561 109,561
SUSTAINMENT......................................... 433,764 433,764
FACILITIES DISPOSITION.............................. 5,000 5,000
SUBTOTAL, ENTERPRISE INFRASTRUCTURE................... 1,660,780 0 1,660,780
TOTAL, SITE STEWARDSHIP................................. 1,706,007 0 1,706,007
DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE............................ 664,981 664,981
CONSTRUCTION:
14-D-710 DAF ARGUS, NNSS............................ 14,000 14,000
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY......................... 678,981 0 678,981
NNSA CIO ACTIVITIES..................................... 148,441 148,441
LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS.............................. 279,597 279,597
SUBTOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.............................. 7,916,147 0 7,916,147
ADJUSTMENTS
USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES............................ -47,738 -47,738
RESCISSION............................................ 0
TOTAL, ADJUSTMENTS...................................... -47,738 0 -47,738
TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES................................. 7,868,409 0 7,868,409
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS
GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE.................... 424,487 424,487
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION R&D
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.......................... 388,838 388,838
NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY........... 141,675 141,675
INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL PROTECTION AND COOPERATION..... 369,625 369,625
FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION
U.S. SURPLUS FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
U.S. PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION...................... 157,557 157,557
U.S. URANIUM DISPOSITION........................ 25,000 25,000
TOTAL, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE................. 182,557 0 182,557
CONSTRUCTION:
99-D-143 MIXED OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY, 320,000 80,000 400,000
SAVANNAH RIVER, SC.............................
Program increase........................... [80,000]
TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION............................... 320,000 80,000 400,000
TOTAL, U.S. SURPLUS FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION... 502,557 80,000 582,557
TOTAL, FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION.................. 502,557 80,000 582,557
LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS............................ 93,703 93,703
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS........ 1,920,885 80,000 2,000,885
NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE PROGRAM...... 181,293 181,293
COUNTERTERRORISM AND COUNTERPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS...... 74,666 74,666
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION.............. 2,176,844 80,000 2,256,844
ADJUSTMENTS
USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES............................ -36,702 -36,702
TOTAL, ADJUSTMENTS...................................... -36,702 0 -36,702
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION................... 2,140,142 80,000 2,220,142
NAVAL REACTORS
NAVAL REACTORS OPERATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE............ 455,740 -2,000 453,740
Excess to need..................................... [-2,000]
NAVAL REACTORS DEVELOPMENT.............................. 419,400 419,400
OHIO REPLACEMENT REACTOR SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT............ 126,400 126,400
S8G PROTOTYPE REFUELING................................. 144,400 144,400
PROGRAM DIRECTION....................................... 44,404 44,404
CONSTRUCTION:
14-D-902 KL MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION LABORATORY 1,000 1,000
EXPANSION, KAPL......................................
14-D-901 SPENT FUEL HANDLING RECAPITALIZATION PROJECT, 45,400 45,400
NRF..................................................
13-D-905 REMOTE-HANDLED LOW-LEVEL WASTE FACILITY, INL. 21,073 21,073
13-D-904 KS RADIOLOGICAL WORK AND STORAGE BUILDING, 600 2,000 2,600
KSO..................................................
Program increase................................. [2,000]
NAVAL REACTOR FACILITY, ID............................ 1,700 1,700
TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION..................................... 69,773 2,000 71,773
SUBTOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS.................................. 1,260,117 0 1,260,117
ADJUSTMENTS:
USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES (NAVAL REACTORS)........... -13,983 -13,983
TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS..................................... 1,246,134 0 1,246,134
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR............................. 397,784 397,784
TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR........................ 397,784 0 397,784
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
CLOSURE SITES:
CLOSURE SITES ADMINISTRATION.......................... 4,702 4,702
HANFORD SITE:
RIVER CORRIDOR AND OTHER CLEANUP OPERATIONS........... 393,634 20,000 413,634
Program increase................................. [20,000]
CENTRAL PLATEAU REMEDIATION........................... 513,450 513,450
RICHLAND COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT............. 14,701 14,701
TOTAL, HANFORD SITE..................................... 921,785 20,000 941,785
IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY:
IDAHO CLEANUP AND WASTE DISPOSITION................... 362,100 30,000 392,100
Program increase................................. [30,000]
IDAHO COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT................ 2,910 2,910
TOTAL, IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY........................ 365,010 30,000 395,010
NNSA SITES
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY................ 1,476 1,476
NUCLEAR FACILITY D & D SEPARATIONS PROCESS RESEARCH 23,700 23,700
UNIT.................................................
NEVADA................................................ 61,897 61,897
SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES.......................... 2,814 2,814
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY........................ 219,789 40,000 259,789
Program increase................................. [40,000]
TOTAL, NNSA SITES AND NEVADA OFF-SITES.................. 309,676 40,000 349,676
OAK RIDGE RESERVATION:
OR NUCLEAR FACILITY D & D............................. 73,716 73,716
OR CLEANUP AND DISPOSITION............................ 115,855 10,000 125,855
Program increase................................. [10,000]
OR RESERVATION COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT....... 4,365 4,365
TOTAL, OAK RIDGE RESERVATION............................ 193,936 10,000 203,936
OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION:
WASTE TREATMENT AND IMMOBILIZATION PLANT
01-D-416 A-E/ORP-0060 / MAJOR CONSTRUCTION.......... 690,000 690,000
TANK FARM ACTIVITIES
RAD LIQUID TANK WASTE STABILIZATION AND DISPOSITION. 520,216 50,000 570,216
Program increase................................. [50,000]
TOTAL, OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION....................... 1,210,216 50,000 1,260,216
SAVANNAH RIVER SITES:
SAVANNAH RIVER RISK MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS............. 432,491 432,491
SR COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT................... 11,210 11,210
RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE:
RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE STABILIZATION AND 552,560 150,000 702,560
DISPOSITION........................................
Program increase................................. [150,000]
CONSTRUCTION:
05-D-405 SALT WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY, SAVANNAH 92,000 92,000
RIVER............................................
TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION................................. 92,000 0 92,000
TOTAL, RADIOACTIVE LIQUID TANK WASTE.................. 644,560 150,000 794,560
TOTAL, SAVANNAH RIVER SITE.............................. 1,088,261 150,000 1,238,261
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT........................... 203,390 33,000 236,390
Program increase................................. [33,000]
TOTAL, WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT...................... 203,390 33,000 236,390
PROGRAM DIRECTION....................................... 280,784 20,000 300,784
Program increase................................. [20,000]
PROGRAM SUPPORT......................................... 17,979 17,979
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY:
OAK RIDGE RESERVATION................................. 18,800 18,800
PADUCAH............................................... 9,435 9,435
PORTSMOUTH............................................ 8,578 8,578
RICHLAND/HANFORD SITE................................. 69,078 10,000 79,078
Program increase................................. [10,000]
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE................................... 121,196 10,000 131,196
Program increase................................. [10,000]
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PROJECT......................... 4,977 4,977
WEST VALLEY........................................... 2,015 2,015
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.................................. 24,091 10,000 34,091
Program increase................................. [10,000]
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP................... 4,853,909 383,000 8,902,461
URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND CONTRIBUTION (LEGISLATIVE 463,000 -463,000 0
PROPOSAL)..............................................
Program decrease........................................ [-463,000]
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP...................... 5,316,909 -80,000 5,236,909
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY
HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY........................... 143,616 143,616
PROGRAM DIRECTION..................................... 108,301 108,301
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENT
TOTAL, HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY...................... 251,917 0 251,917
SPECIALIZED SECURITY ACTIVITIES......................... 196,322 196,322
OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT
LEGACY MANAGEMENT..................................... 163,271 163,271
PROGRAM DIRECTION..................................... 13,712 13,712
TOTAL, OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT...................... 176,983 0 176,983
DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER............................... 38,979 38,979
CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER............................. 79,857 79,857
TOTAL, DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT........... 118,836 0 118,836
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS.......................... 5,022 5,022
SUBTOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........................ 749,080 0 749,080
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........................... 749,080 0 749,080
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Departmental Recommendations
Four separate legislative proposals on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 were submitted as
executive communications to the President of the Senate by the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs of the
Department of Defense and subsequently referred to the
committee. Information on these executive communications
appears below. All of these executive communications are
available for review at the committee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received in the
Executive Communication No. Dated Committee on Armed
Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EC-1470......................... April 29, 2013.... May 15, 2013
EC-1552......................... May 7, 2013....... May 21, 2013
EC-1592......................... May 20, 2013...... May 23, 2013
EC-1766......................... May 22, 2013...... June 4, 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 23, 2013, Senators Levin and Inhofe introduced by
request the administration's proposed National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. This bill--S. 1034--was
introduced for the purpose of placing the administration's
proposals before Congress and the public without expressing the
views of Senators Levin or Inhofe on the substance of those
proposals. In accordance with past practice, the committee
reported an original bill rather than acting on S. 1034.
Committee Action
The committee vote to report the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 passed by roll call
vote, 23-3, as follows: In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson,
McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain,
Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, and
Blunt. Opposed: Senators Vitter, Lee, and Cruz.
The 13 other roll call votes on motions and amendments to
the bill which were considered during the course of the full
committee markup are as follows:
1. MOTION: To include a provision that would require a
review of decisions not to refer charges of certain sexual
offenses to trial by court-martial.
VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 17-9.
In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin,
Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker,
Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Blunt, and Lee.
Opposed: Senators Udall, Hagan, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Vitter, and Cruz
2. MOTION: To include multiple provisions addressing sexual
assaults in the military.
VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 26-0.
In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall,
Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly,
Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss,
Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz.
Opposed: None.
3. MOTION: To conduct full Committee markups in closed
session because classified information will be discussed.
VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 20-6.
In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, Udall, Hagan,
Manchin, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain,
Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter,
and Blunt.
Opposed: Senators McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, Lee, and Cruz.
4. MOTION: To include a provision exempting the Department
of Defense from alternative fuel procurement requirement.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 13-13.
In favor: Senators Manchin, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions,
Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee,
and Cruz.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall,
Hagan, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono,
Kaine, and King
5. MOTION: To include a provision for limitations on
allowable costs of salaries of contractor employees.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 12-14.
In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan,
Manchin, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, King, and
Vitter.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Shaheen, Kaine, Inhofe, McCain,
Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Blunt,
Lee, and Cruz.
6. MOTION: To include an alternative provision providing
for limitations on allowable costs of salaries of contractor
employees.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 6-20.
In favor: Senators Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss,
Wicker, and Graham.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall,
Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly,
Hirono, Kaine, King, Ayotte, Fischer, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and
Cruz.
7. MOTION: To include a provision for cost comparison for
procurement of alternative fuel.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 12-14.
In favor: Senators Manchin, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions,
Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and
Cruz.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall,
Hagan, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono,
Kaine, King, and Fischer.
8. MOTION: To include a provision requiring certification
for biofuel refinery construction.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 11-15.
In favor: Senators Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss,
Wicker, Ayotte, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall,
Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly,
Hirono, Kaine, King, and Fischer.
9. MOTION: To include report language addressing the use of
amounts authorized for base defense requirements to pay for
warfighting costs of Overseas Contingency Operations.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 12-14.
In favor: Senators Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss,
Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz
Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall,
Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly,
Hirono, Kaine, and King.
10. MOTION: To strike a provision that would restore the
previous policy regarding restrictions on use of Department of
Defense medical facilities.
VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 15-11.
In favor: Senators Nelson, Manchin, Donnelly, Inhofe,
McCain, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham,
Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan,
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, and King.
11. MOTION: To include a provision to enhance the
protection of rights of conscience of members of the armed
forces and chaplains of such members.
VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 19-7.
In favor: Senators Nelson, McCaskill, Hagan, Manchin,
Donnelly, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss,
Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Udall, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, and Hirono.
12. MOTION: To strike the one-year extension and
modification of authority for program to develop and carry out
infrastructure projects in Afghanistan and require a report on
transition of project management.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote, 7-19.
In favor: Senators McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, Lee, and Cruz.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, Udall, Hagan,
Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions,
Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, and Blunt.
13. MOTION: To restrict funding for the Task Force for
Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan.
VOTE: Adopted by roll call vote, 26-0.
In favor: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Udall,
Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly,
Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions, Chambliss,
Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter, Blunt, Lee, and Cruz.
Opposed: None.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget
Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not
available at the time the report was filed. It will be included
in material presented during Senate floor debate on the
legislation.
Regulatory Impact
Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the
bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds
that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2014.
Changes in Existing Law
Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law
made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in
this section of the report because, in the opinion of the
committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such
changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and
reduce the expenditure of funds.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
----------
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. INHOFE
One of the defining characteristics of the Senate Armed
Services Committee is its Members' ability to put partisan
considerations aside and work together toward enhancing our
national security, increasing the capabilities of our armed
forces, and providing a better quality of life for our service
members. This is not to mean the Members of the Committee do
not have differences of opinion regarding important policy
matters. However, the Members of the Committee and I are
grateful for Chairman Levin's leadership and his tireless
commitment to ensure every Member's concerns are heard and
considered.
In order to further the Committee's goals of enhancing our
national security and increasing the capabilities of our armed
forces, as Ranking Member, I developed a list of policy areas
on which I will place particular importance. I am pleased to
report significant progress has been made in each of these
policy areas during the Committee's consideration of the Fiscal
Year 2014 National Defense Authorization bill, but more needs
to be done.
Missile Defense and Nuclear Modernization
In the area of Missile Defense, the Committee agreed to an
amendment offered by Senator Ayotte and myself which added an
additional $30 million for the deployment of an X-band radar,
or other comparable sensor, to enhance the defense of the
homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats. Deployed
in a location optimized for the defense of the East Coast, this
radar will be an important step toward providing a more
effective defense against the growing nuclear and ballistic
missile threat from Iran. But this is not sufficient. Congress
should direct the Department of Defense to begin deployment of
an additional homeland missile defense interceptor site to
better defend the East Coast. Since an East Coast anti-
ballistic missile interceptor site was included in the House's
version of the Defense Authorization bill, it is my hope that
continued progress in this area will occur during the
Conference Committee. Separately, I secured an ``Item of
Special Interest'' in the bill encouraging the Missile Defense
Agency to develop a next generation advanced kill vehicle for
the ground-based interceptor. This will further enable our
defenses to stay ahead of future threats.
Regarding the modernization of our nuclear forces, the
Committee agreed to fully fund the President's budget request.
However, the amount requested by the administration for the
National Nuclear Security Administration was $285 million less
than commitment for Fiscal Year 2014 made by the President
during consideration of the New START Treaty. The bill also
contains a legislative provision reaffirming Congress'
commitment to modernize our triad of nuclear delivery systems,
which consists of bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles
and ballistic missile submarines. Most importantly, this
legislation also includes support for the renewal of our
nuclear weapons production capabilities.
In addition, to prevent the President from contemplating
unilateral nuclear force reductions below New START Treaty
levels or entering into an executive agreement with the Russian
President, I authored an amendment expressing the Sense of
Congress that any future reductions in our nuclear forces must
take place by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Unfortunately, due to jurisdiction issues, this amendment was
ruled out of order. However, I am committed to offering this
amendment again on the Senate floor.
Acquisition Reform
Despite important reforms such as the Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, defense acquisition programs
continue to be behind schedule and over budget. During this
period of budget austerity, it is critical every taxpayer
dollar allocated to defense acquisition be spent prudently.
Accordingly, I initiated a number of reforms which were
included in the Defense Authorization bill. These include a
section which authorizes the Comptroller General to review the
Department of Defense's processes for the acquisition of major
weapons systems. The objective of the review is to identify
those acquisition processes that provide no value, little
value, or which value is outweighed by the creation of
additional costs and schedule delays. The recommendations of
the report can then be incorporated in next year's Defense
Authorization bill to create greater efficiencies and savings
in the acquisition realm.
In addition, I was able to place in the bill a second
Comptroller General review based upon the acquisition reform
recommendations of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review's
Independent Panel. Specifically, the review will evaluate the
Panel's recommendation to place greater emphasis on the role of
the armed services, in particular the respective Secretaries
and Chiefs of Staff, in the acquisition of weapons systems. As
a result, it is my hope the review will identify new management
models to increase the effectiveness of the acquisition system.
Readiness and Capabilities
I am very concerned about the rapid degradation of military
capabilities of both our forces engaged in combat and those
preparing for the next contingency operation. This
deterioration is a result of the administration's decision to
cut Defense budgets by over $600 billion over ten years and is
in addition to those cuts required by sequestration.
Accordingly, I crafted several provisions included in the
bill which are designed to direct the attention of the
Committee to the negative effects of sequestration, in
particular the pending reality of a hollow force. In addition,
I added language requiring each branch of the Armed Forces to
establish a long-term plan and investment strategy for the
reconstitution of military equipment being returned from
Afghanistan.
I was also pleased to work with the Chairman to establish a
new authority to allow the Department of Defense to transfer
funds to a new Readiness Restoration Account. This account will
permit the Department to transfer funds from lower priorities
to more critical areas, such as military training and the
maintenance of military equipment.
Threat, Strategy and Resources
In an era of fiscal austerity, our strategies and resources
must be tightly matched to confront looming threats. Therefore,
I strongly supported a report to assess the capabilities of
stealth, fifth generation Chinese fighter aircraft and their
potential impact to our Pacific strategy. This assessment will
also review the capabilities of the Taiwanese Air Force.
In the Middle East, $75 million under the Cooperative
Threat Reduction program was allocated towards reducing the
threat of Syrian chemical weapon proliferation. As part of this
effort, $150 million was also allotted to assist the Jordanian
Armed Forces with their security operations on its border with
Syria.
As the events in Benghazi highlighted, U.S. Africa Command
(``AFRICOM'') has not received sufficient resources to
thoroughly counter the growing terrorist threat in North
Africa. One of the lessons learned from this tragedy is in
order to meet the threats of today and tomorrow we must adopt
an interagency strategy which is designed to overcome the
challenges which confront not just one nation but the region as
a whole. Accordingly, the Secretary of Defense is directed to
review AFRICOM's rapid reaction assets and develop a regional
strategy which addresses the terrorist threat in North Africa.
In addition, the bill extends through 2018 the Global Train
and Equip Authority. Combat commanders routinely state this
authority greatly assists our forces in achieving theater
counterterrorism and stability operational objectives.
Efficiencies
During sequestration it is vital we make every dollar
count. Therefore, I have worked to ensure, through report
requirements and assessments from the General Accounting
Office, that the Department of Defense's science and technology
efforts are focused on current warfighter requirements, quickly
transiting technologies from the lab to the battlefield, and
eliminating duplicative programs. Accordingly, the bill
reallocates $200 million within the science and technology
budget to more effectively meet the warfighter's requirements.
Combating Sequestration
The bill which the Committee passed provides $526.5 billion
to the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, I do not believe
this is a sufficient sum to adequately confront our nation's
current and future threats. However, what is even more
disturbing is we are on the verge of cutting the defense budget
even further as a new round of sequestration is set to take
effect next year. These automatic and mindless cuts continue to
plague our military. Specifically, sequestration undermines the
ability of military commanders to plan, it wreaks havoc on our
industrial base, and the resulting uncertainty can only
embolden our adversaries around the world.
Accordingly, during markup, I offered a proposal to cancel
sequestration for the Department of Defense for Fiscal Year
2014. This amendment was fully paid for with an offset.
Unfortunately, the Committee's Chairman ruled my amendment out
of order due to a jurisdictional issue. However, I am not
deterred and I am strongly considering offering this amendment
again during the bill's consideration on the Senate floor.
Ending Sexual Assault in the Military
Ending the scourge of sexual assault in our nation's
military is one of my highest priorities. The issue of sexual
assault requires vigorous and continuous oversight to ensure
its complete eradication from our military forces. However, I
believe the most effective way to solve this problem is by
better utilizing one of the military's greatest strengths: the
chain of command. Therefore, I was grateful to work with
Chairman Levin to craft reforms which will better ensure
justice is done while maintaining the chain of command.
Specifically, the Levin/Inhofe amendment, which was adopted,
requires a higher level of review when a commander decides not
to prosecute a sexual assault allegation. This higher review
will go all the way to the respective service Secretary when a
commander disagrees with a military lawyer's recommendation to
prosecute a sexual offense.
In addition, recently, there have been a small number of
cases where a commander has overturned a sexual assault
conviction. To address this issue, Senator Graham offered an
amendment which restricts the ability of a commander to modify
court-martial findings of guilty for a sexual offense. I look
forward to the reconsideration of the Graham Amendment when the
bill is brought to the Senate floor later this year.
Guantanamo Bay Detainees
This year's Senate Defense Authorization bill's provisions
regarding Guantanamo Bay detainees are a fundamental shift from
policies enacted in previous years' Defense Authorization Acts.
Specifically, this bill creates large loopholes which, if
enacted, will result in the transfer of detainees to the shores
of our country and permit their easier conveyance to foreign
countries. This contrasts sharply with previous years'
legislation which ensured detainees would not be brought to the
United States and would not be transferred to other countries
unless reasonable conditions were met. Adding to my agitation
on this matter, is that previous years' statutes were built
upon a bipartisan consensus, consistent with public opinion,
which was formed after years of congressional debate and were
written to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court. Removing
these provisions will make our nation less secure. Accordingly,
I will resolutely oppose the inclusion of these proposed
sections in the final Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense
Authorization Act.
Putting the So-Called Green Agenda Before the Needs of the Warfighter
Under current law, the Department of Defense is required to
certify the alternative fuel it purchases does not exceed the
level of greenhouse gas emissions of equivalent petroleum
products. Clearly, this statue, Section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, was crafted to support a
political agenda rather than to meet the operational
requirements of the warfighter. Specifically, this prohibition
denies the Department access to the full range of synthetic
fuels which are comparable in price to fossil fuels. Therefore,
I was very disappointed when an amendment designed to exempt
the Department from the onerous provisions of Section 526 was
not adopted by the Committee. I look forward to revisiting this
issue when the bill is considered on the floor of the Senate.
In addition, in an effort to create savings for the
Department, I offered two amendments regarding the use of
Defense funds for a national biofuels program. The first
amendment codified the existing policy of the Department not to
make bulk purchases of alternative drop-in replacement fuels,
unless those fuels are cost-competitive with petroleum
products. The second amendment provided the Secretary of
Defense the discretion to assess, in light of sequestration,
whether continued construction of a commercial biofuels
refinery is in the best interest of the national defense. I
strongly believe the military is better served by cancelling
the construction of this refinery and using the resulting $170
million in savings for more urgent priorities. For example, the
$170 million could be used to resume flight training for 10 of
the 17 Air Force squadrons which are currently grounded due to
sequestration. Another possibility is to procure for the
Marines more efficient power generators for forward locations
in Afghanistan. Pursing this option will save fuel, reduce the
number fuel conveys, and save lives.
Lack of Funding for Overseas Contingency Operations
There exists no more important responsibility of a
government then to fully support the men and women it places in
harm's way. Therefore, I am astonished neither the
Administration nor the Committee has acted to rectify
significant funding shortfalls in accounts which are used to
pay for our operations in Afghanistan and maintain the
capabilities of our armed forces.
Congress routinely authorizes funding for our military
through two separate and distinct funding mechanisms. The first
is for ``base'' accounts, which pays for normal military
expenses in such areas as personnel compensation, training, and
acquisition of weapons systems. The second, called Overseas
Contingency Operations (``OCO'') accounts, are for ongoing
combat operations and responding to humanitarian crisis. OCO
funds are usually authorized through supplemental emergency
funding requests submitted by the Executive Branch. One of the
primary benefits of using these two account systems is to
ensure core defense requirements are not sacrificed to pay for
combat and humanitarian operations. Therefore, ensuring both
the base and OCO accounts receive the appropriate level of
funding is critical to maintaining the long-term health of our
military and successfully prosecuting our operations overseas.
In order to ensure our forces receive all the support and
equipment they need, OCO funding has previously garnered strong
bipartisan support. However, despite the vital importance of
OCO funds, currently there is an $11.0 billion shortfall for
Fiscal Year 2013. According to the Administration this deficit
is a result of an ``operating tempo exceed[ing] the level
anticipated,'' and ``transportation costs are also higher
because of unanticipated problems with the Ground Lines of
Communication in Pakistan.'' One would expect Congress, working
with the Executive Branch, would seek an immediate remedy to
this situation. Therefore, I was indignant and shocked when the
Committee did not rectify this significant deficit nor the
Administration offer more than a partial remedy.
Normally, this situation would be resolved by the Executive
Branch requesting additional supplemental appropriations.
However, the Administration appears to have decided not to
pursue this course and seeks only a partial remedy by
transferring $7.3 billion to cover the shortfall in Fiscal Year
2013 OCO accounts. Specifically, the Department seeks to
transfer $2.3 billion from base readiness accounts, $1.5
billion from cuts to other defense accounts, and $3.5 billion
from other OCO priorities. However, even after these transfers
a $3.7 billion deficit will remain. Adding to this
consternation, the $3.7 billion deficit figure was only arrived
at after many lower priority OCO initiatives were cut. In
addition, the continued reductions in base defense accounts due
to sequestration and from offsets to the OCO accounts continue
to have a negative impact on multiple military personnel and
procurement accounts. Also, the Administration's proposed
transfer of funds to offset the OCO deficit will consume over
95 percent of the amount permitted under the law to be
reallocated, leaving the Department with a limited ability to
respond to other priorities.
Accordingly, to act as a catalyst to resolve this issue, I
offered an amendment encouraging the Administration to
immediately submit to Congress an additional emergency
supplemental appropriations request for Fiscal Year 2013. The
amendment called for the Administration to request sufficient
funds to cover all emerging OCO requirements, including the
$3.7 billion deficit. My amendment also encouraged the
Department to restore the cuts to the base defense accounts
from which funds had been transferred to OCO accounts.
Unfortunately, on a party-line vote, my amendment was not
adopted. As a result, the Committee has refused to encourage
the Administration to demonstrate leadership and cooperation
with Congress and address emerging and critical warfighter
needs through a request for additional OCO funds. This is a
critical issue which must be resolved before further damage is
incurred not only to the Department, but to its most important
resource: the warfighter. Accordingly, I will bring my
amendment to the Senate floor for further consideration.
In conclusion, I have been able to incorporate a number of
important initiatives into the Defense Authorization bill.
However, I view this as only the beginning of my efforts, as
Ranking Member, to enhance our national security and increase
the capabilities of our armed forces. I look forward to working
with the members of the Committee and my colleagues in the
Senate to ensure an even greater number of reforms are enacted
into law.
James M. Inhofe.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. McCAIN
I voted, with most of my colleagues, in favor of passing
the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act out of
the Senate Armed Services Committee. Consideration of this bill
should be taken up by the full Senate at the earliest
opportunity to give the Department sufficient time to implement
the policies contained within it and to help the Senate return
to the regular order of authorizing and appropriating
legislation. Congress' failure to authorize and appropriate in
a timely and regular way, including the recurring use of
Continuing Appropriations Resolutions, has perpetuated defense
planning uncertainty, wasted untold resources and harmed
national defense.
The President's failure to provide constructive leadership
to avert budget sequestration has likewise damaged our defense
institutions; I remain deeply concerned about the impact
sequester is having on the composition and operational
readiness of our forces. For reasons of jurisdiction, we were
unable to fully consider proposals to mitigate or nullify the
automatic cuts to defense and I look forward to debating ways
to solve this problem before the full Senate.
The committee also chose to defer matters relating to the
detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. Having
completed my most recent visit to the detention facility this
month, I continue to believe strongly that it is in our
national interest to end detention at Guantanamo, with a safe
and orderly transition of the detainees to other locations.
Much of the work necessary to make that happen should take
place in the public eye and by the hand of the full Senate.
One issue we must continue to grapple with is how the
Department of Defense can most effectively reduce instances of
sexual assault and ensure that offenders are held accountable.
This is a problem that threatens the very fabric of our
military. I believe it is an issue of defending basic human
rights and one that, if left unaddressed, will undermine the
readiness of our forces--particularly, the Department's ability
to recruit and retain the fighting force it needs to ensure our
Nation's defense.
In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, we faced a similar
problem in dealing with the scourge of racism in the military.
We addressed that issue decisively and aggressively and put in
place programs and policies that helped to bring an end to a
culture of racism in our military. We must do the same thing in
the case of the current sexual assault crisis.
I support provisions offered by members of the committee
that (1) provide assistance and ease reporting for victims of
alleged sexual abuse; (2) strengthen penalties for perpetrators
of these crimes; (3) maintain the fundamental role of the
chain-of-command in convening courts martial; (4) hold
commanders accountable for the leadership climate they
establish; (5) prevent sexual offenders from entering the armed
services or staying in uniform; and (6) encourage the cultural
change necessary for the Department of Defense to reduce and
ultimately eliminate these poisonous offenses from our ranks. I
hope that as this legislation is debated on the Floor of the
Senate, we can continue to build on that consensus to ensure
that this problem is addressed effectively and responsibly.
Also, I believe that Congress' and the Department of
Defense's understanding of the nature and scope of the problem
of sexual assault in the military is in need of refinement. To
this end, policymakers and military leaders would benefit from
a survey that follows up on the Department's most recent gross
estimate by, among other things, categorizing the types of
reported offenses.
The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program continues to attract
significant congressional oversight--as befits the Department
of Defense's largest weapons procurement program. After years
of helping to oversee how the JSF program is being managed and
legislate changes to it, I am pleased to see signs that the
Department may be finally containing excessive cost growth in
this top defense procurement priority. In a March 2013 report,
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) described this
program as ``moving in the right direction''. On May 23, the
Department of Defense released its latest JSF Selected
Acquisition Report, announcing a 1.1 percent reduction in the
overall program cost of the JSF--a $4.5 billion savings from
the previous estimate. While these reports suggest
improvements, Congress must continue to scrutinize this
critically important program to ensure that they endure.
In support of its oversight role, the Subcommitee on
Seapower investigated a number of Navy shipbuilding and weapons
program this year. Late last year, GAO reported notable but
limited improvement in how effectively the Department has been
able to hold down excessive cost growth in its major defense
acquisition programs since the enactment of the 2009 Weapons
Systems Acquisition Reform Act. But, the Department of Defense
and the Navy continue to structure excessive concurrency
between development and production into its strategies to
acquire its largest weapon systems, which exposes these
programs to the risk of excessive cost increases and schedule
slips late in production. In some Navy ship construction
programs this has been manifested in dangerously high-risk
development schedules and accelerated procurement plans while
delivering uncertain capabilities amidst constantly shifting
requirements.
The current Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program is a good
example of the foregoing dynamics and represents a departure
from the program that was first envisioned a decade ago by
Admiral Vern Clark. After having originally doubled over its
original estimate, the current cost per seaframe has stabilized
for the moment. But, major challenges abound that threaten
whether this program will indeed be able to deliver intended
combat capability. The decision to use a commercial hull has
not resulted in a shortened fielding period; the two-variant
seaframe acquisition has resulted in decreased commonality; and
capabilities for the seaframes and mission modules are still
unknown and untested. Yet, the Navy continues with the
retirement of the patrol craft, frigates, and minesweepers that
LCS was intended to replace.
Despite the risks, the Navy plans for 52 LCS to comprise
one third of the Navy's total surface combatant fleet by 2028.
In addition, according to schedules provided by the Navy, by
the time integrated LCS capabilities are tested--in 2019--the
Navy will have procured or put under contract more than half of
the total number of seaframes planned for purchase.
Four reports issued in the last year have raised
significant questions as to whether LCS, as currently designed,
has the capabilities to meet combatant requirements for the
next thirty years. An internal Navy report issued in 2012
raised fundamental questions about LCS' suitability, lethality,
and survivability. A recent draft GAO report is equally
critical of the program, stating that ``[n]either Congress nor
the Navy can be certain that the LCS is the right system to
meet the warfighter needs . . . the apparent disconnect between
the LCS acquisition strategy and the needs of the end users
suggest that a pause is needed.''
The Navy has spent some $12 billion on LCS to date and is
planning to spend another $28 billion through 2034. At this
point program we need an honest, objective look at the
requirements, capabilities, and current acquisition strategy
for LCS. I encourage my colleagues to consider a reporting
requirement that would direct the Secretary of the Navy to
submit to Congress specific certifications on LCS acquisition
milestones and capabilities before being authorized to obligate
funds for LCS 21 and beyond.
The Ford Class Aircraft Carrier program is also at risk of
significant and continued cost increases and major schedule
slips. The committee approved the Navy's request to increase
the statutory cost cap on the lead ship, CVN-78 with the
acknowledgment that first-in-class ships often experience cost
growth as new systems are designed, integrated and tested.
These challenges must be overcome and contained in the first
ship--not allowed to continue with subsequent ship builds. I am
concerned that the Navy is rushing to put the second ship, CVN-
79, on contract before the costs of the first ship have
stabilized.
If allowed to continue on their current path, the Navy will
put CVN-79 on a fixed-price construction contract early in the
fall of 2013--before the ship has a complete design and bill of
materials; before having a firm set of stable requirements;
before testing critical new technologies including aircraft
launch and retrieval systems and a new radar; and before the
ship has an optimal build plan. This fundamentally deviates
from widely-recognized commercial shipbuilding practices and
would expose the program to an unreasonable risk of excessive
cost growth and schedule slips.
The Navy reports that design work on CVN-78 is not yet
finalized, construction is 60% complete and behind schedule,
critical systems testing is behind schedule, and that no
integration testing has occurred. Yet, despite a great deal of
residual risk and uncertainty in the lead ship, the Navy
continues to plan a September 2013 multi-billion, sole source
construction contract award for the second ship. This course of
action would increase the likelihood of frequent change orders
to the contract as technical difficulties, which should have
been addressed in the first-in-class ship, have to be solved,
at great expense, in the second ship.
I want to ensure the cost-saving efforts proposed by the
Navy in its recent report to Congress will be achieved. This
can be done without delaying the delivery of CVN-79 to the
fleet. I strongly encourage my colleagues to consider measures
that would require the Secretary of the Navy to have a greater
degree of certainty about the design and cost of CVN-78 before
awarding a construction contract for CVN-79.
John McCain.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MS. AYOTTE
Building on its well-deserved reputation for bipartisanship
in support of our men and women in uniform and American
national security, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC)
voted overwhelmingly to approve its version of the fiscal year
(FY) 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In today's
partisan climate in Washington, this act of bipartisanship is
worth noting. While this bill is not perfect, there are several
praiseworthy components in areas related to contingency
contracting, military sexual assault, our attack submarine
fleet, and acquisition reform. In addition to the concerns
regarding the components of the bill related to Guantanamo that
are highlighted in a separate additional views section, I also
remain very concerned about the impact that defense
sequestration is having on our men and women in uniform and our
nation's military readiness.
Never Contract with the Enemy
The federal government has a deep moral obligation to serve
as a responsible steward of the people's tax dollars. Congress
must conduct rigorous oversight of federal spending to
eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse. Especially at a time when
our nation has incurred approximately $17 trillion in debt, we
simply cannot afford to allow our tax dollars to be misspent.
When the United States engages in contracting overseas we
must ensure our tax dollars do not end up in the hands of our
enemies. Our troops should never have to worry that American
tax dollars are funding those with whom they are fighting on
the battlefield.
As we have conducted more rigorous oversight of U.S.
contracting overseas, particularly where the U.S. has spent
billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has become
clear that acquisition laws and regulations--as well as
existing oversight mechanisms within the Pentagon, the State
Department, and U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID)--are dramatically insufficient to addressing the
contracting challenges.
From 2002 to 2011, the Commission on Wartime Contracting
conservatively estimated that $31 billion to $60 billion in
contracts were lost to waste and fraud.
Even worse, the Commission found that the second largest
source of income for insurgents in Afghanistan has been U.S.
contracting dollars. Whether through negligence or the
deliberate actions of malign actors, these contracts sometimes
result in taxpayer funds being diverted to our enemies.
One of the reasons for this unacceptable situation was that
our acquisition officials in Iraq and Afghanistan were often
operating under laws and regulations that were designed for
contracting in the United States during peacetime, not in
Baghdad or Bagram during wartime.
As a result, once we discovered that a U.S. contract was
allowing money to end up in the hands of our enemies, it would
take far too long to terminate the contract and end the flow of
contract funds to those who were opposing the United States.
In February 2011, I teamed up with Senator Scott Brown (R-
MA) to introduce S. 341, The No Contracting with the Enemy Act.
We then worked with SASC to include key elements of our
legislation in the FY 2012 NDAA. These Section 841 and 842
authorities gave Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition
officials in Afghanistan the ability to more quickly sever ties
with contractors who funnel taxpayer resources to those who
oppose the United States.
Since December 2011, these authorities have enabled the
Central Command Commander to identify four Afghan vendors and
28 entities associated with these four vendors that have been
engaged in hostile activities, resulting in the termination of
10 subcontracts with foreign vendors and withholding of funds
from one foreign prime contractor. These termination actions
have resulted in approximately $31 million in savings.
While the Section 841 and 842 authorities were a major step
in the right direction, more can and should be done. To expand
and enhance the authorities that were established in 2011, on
April 9, 2013, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and I
introduced the bipartisan S. 675, The Never Contract with the
Enemy Act. I am pleased that key components of our bill are
included in this Committee-approved NDAA. Among other
improvements, the language in this year's bill expands these
authorities to all geographic combatant commands, extends the
authorities which would have expired in December 2014 until
December 2018, and lowers the contract threshold from $100,000
to $20,000.
I look forward to ensuring this important language is in
the final NDAA. I also look forward to working with other
committees and the full Senate to ensure these authorities are
available to acquisition officials outside of DoD.
S. 675 seeks to expand these essential authorities to
acquisition officials in the entire federal government. Yet, in
the SASC-approved NDAA, while we were able to expand these
authorities to all geographic combatant commands within the
Department of Defense, due to jurisdictional constraints, we
were not able to expand these authorities to acquisition
officials outside of the Department of Defense.
As General Joseph Dunford, the commander of all U.S. and
coalition forces in Afghanistan, testified on April 16, 2013,
it is essential that acquisition officials outside the
Department of Defense possess the same authorities to quickly
terminate contracts. In addition to endorsing our legislation,
he testified that it will be ``critical'' that the State
Department and USAID have the same authorities to cancel
contracts as DoD so that we ``don't contract with the enemy.''
He said that, ``Expanding that [authority] to include non-DoD
organizations makes a lot of sense.''
In addition, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction (SIGAR) and the Special Inspector General for
Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) have endorsed our efforts to expand
these authorities to all federal government acquisition
officials operating overseas.
I look forward to working with members of both parties to
strengthen current laws and regulations to make sure the
federal government serves as a responsible steward of our tax
dollars and to ensure our resources do not end up in the hands
of our enemies.
Military Sexual Assault
The prevalence of sexual assaults occurring in the military
represents a serious threat to the honor and dignity of our men
and women who serve in uniform and to the readiness and
cohesion of our units. The status quo is simply unacceptable,
and I am pleased that this committee has so openly and
passionately discussed how to best stop sexual assaults from
occurring in our military. A real solution to this growing
problem is past due.
I believe we have developed a strong and appropriate
legislative response to aggressively combat this issue,
including reforms to the legal framework under which these
crimes are prosecuted and providing additional protections and
resources to victims of these terrible crimes.
I am pleased that the bill incorporates several key
provisions of S. 871, The Combating Military Sexual Assault
Act, which I coauthored with Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and
which has more than 37 cosponsors. Our provisions, which were
included in the SASC-approved bill, will provide sexual assault
victims in all military branches with Special Victims' Counsel
(SVC)--a trained military lawyer to guide a victim through the
legal process. Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh
testified before this committee that responses of victims in
the Air Force's SVC pilot program have been ``overwhelmingly
positive.'' Furthermore, Chairman Martin Dempsey supports
``providing victims of sexual assault this important
resource.'' The defense bill includes our provisions that
enhance responsibilities for the Pentagon's Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Office and provide Sexual Assault
Response Coordinators to members of the National Guard and
Reserve.
In addition, I was a cosponsor of Chairman Carl Levin's (D-
MI) amendment, which modifies the disposition authority in
cases of certain sex-related crimes. The Chairman's amendment
provides for the review of a convening authority's (CA's)
decision not to take charges of certain sexual offenses to
trial by court-martial in all instances--both when a staff
Judge Advocate General (JAG) recommends that such charges be
taken to trial by court-martial and when a staff JAG recommends
that such charges not be taken to trial by court-martial. In
other words, a decision not to take charges of sexual offenses
to trial by court-martial will always be reviewed by a higher
authority, in some instances by the civilian Secretary of the
military department concerned. Such involvement and oversight
by higher authorities is appropriate given the severity of the
sexual assault crisis in our military.
Further, Chairman Levin's amendment prohibits retaliation
against a member of the Armed Forces for reporting a criminal
offense, which is particularly important given that 62 percent
of victims who have made reports of sexual offenses also report
experiencing some form of retaliation for doing so. The
amendment also expresses the Sense of the Senate that
commanding officers are responsible for establishing a command
climate in which a victim should feel safe reporting a crime,
and that failure to establish such an environment is an
appropriate basis for relief from command positions. Senior
officers should evaluate commanding officers based on their
performance in establishing such a command climate.
We must tackle this problem from multiple fronts and change
the culture of our military with respect to sexual assault. We
must deter such behavior in the first place while
simultaneously ensuring victim support in the event such a
crime is committed. Our military leaders must translate zero
tolerance rhetoric into zero tolerance policy and practice. I
am hopeful that the significant changes to current law
contained in this bill will empower victims to come forward to
report crimes so that they can receive the care and justice
they need and deserve. In addition to preventing such crimes
and appropriately punishing those who commit them, we must
focus on the victims and empower them with the care, resources,
and confidence they need to overcome the mental and physical
consequences of such a crime--crimes of power and control. We
must help them to restore their own sense of power and control.
To be clear, Congress will not pass this year's defense
bill, hope for the best, and then lose interest. Members of
this committee are united in our determination to address the
scourge of sexual assault in the military. We will continue to
demand the best from our military leaders. We will continue to
exercise the oversight that the American people demand. As the
service chiefs testified before this committee, the chain of
command is crucial to fixing this problem. Rest assured that we
will hold them accountable, and we will continue to exercise
aggressive oversight to ensure our men and women can serve in
an environment free of sexual assault that allows them to focus
on accomplishing their missions.
Attack Submarine Fleet
As anti-access/area denial threats to our forces grow, the
Virginia Class submarine provides the U.S. military an
essential capability. Yet, as Admiral Mark Ferguson testified
on April 18, 2013, the Navy is only able to meet ``about half''
of combatant commander requests for attack submarines.
Ensuring our combatant commanders have a sufficient number
of attack submarines will become even more important as U.S.
strategic interests demand an increased focus on the maritime-
dominated Asia Pacific region, as well as the Persian Gulf. As
Los Angeles Class submarines reach the end of their service
life, if we don't build enough Virginia Class submarines, the
Navy's ability to meet combatant commander requirements for
attack submarines will decline even further.
For these reasons, building on our work from last year, I
am pleased that this bill authorizes and supports the
administration's request to build two Virginia Class submarines
in FY 2014. The construction of a second Virginia Class
submarine next fiscal year, as well as moving forward on the
Virginia Payload Module, will help ensure that U.S. naval
supremacy--which serves as an essential guarantor of U.S.
economic and national security interests--will continue well
into the future.
MEADS: Ending the Missile to Nowhere
I am encouraged that the Committee adopted my provision to
prohibit any spending in FY 2014 on the Medium Extended Air
Defense System (MEADS).
Between FY 2004 and FY 2011, the U.S. spent almost $3
billion on MEADS. With $17 trillion in national debt, we cannot
afford to spend another cent on a weapons system that DoD has
no intention of procuring.
On March 23, 2013, during consideration of the budget
resolution (S. Con. Res. 8), the Senate overwhelmingly approved
(94 to 5) my amendment (S. AMDT. 136) aimed at scrapping money
for MEADS in FY 2014. Echoing the clear position of the
overwhelming majority of the Senate, in a letter to me on June
12, 2013, The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall reiterated that the
``Department views the FY 2013 funds for the MEADS program as
the final obligation'' and that additional U.S. funding for
MEADS is ``not required and was not included in the President's
FY 2014 Budget Submission.'' Secretary Kendall also confirmed
that the ``Department has no plan for or intention of
requesting additional MEADS funding.''
The prohibition in the SASC-approved NDAA makes clear that
this Committee is opposed to any additional funding in FY 2014
for MEADS. At a time when Congress is struggling to provide the
resources needed to maintain the readiness of our forces, as
Secretary Kendall wrote in his letter to me, we must avoid
``spending that is not needed.''
Reducing Costly Pentagon Redundancy
I am pleased that the report language accompanying the
SASC-approved NDAA includes my provisions related to
duplication in ground radar programs and air-to-ground rocket
and missile programs. Our nation's fiscal crisis and
increasingly constrained defense budgets require that the
Pentagon look for every opportunity to develop joint programs
and reduce costs, while meeting valid service requirements. I
look forward to reviewing closely the findings of the
Comptroller General of the General Accountability Office in
order to determine whether the Pentagon could consolidate
requirements, reduce redundancy, develop joint programs, and
save money in its ground radar and air-to-ground rocket and
missile programs.
Sequestration: A Threat to Our Military Readiness
While the NDAA passed by the Committee seeks to maintain
the readiness of our forces, I remain seriously concerned about
the impact of sequestration and budget uncertainty on our
military readiness.
I worry that some members of Congress think sequestration
is acceptable or even desirable. We should be clear: at a time
of enormous national security challenges in places such as
North Korea, Iran, and Syria, sequestration represents an
avoidable, irresponsible, and dangerous policy.
Friends and potential enemies alike are watching. We must
do everything possible to retain the most powerful military in
the world so that there will be no doubt that the United States
is capable of protecting our interests and those of our allies.
If we allow defense sequestration to continue, the deterrence
of our potential enemies and assurance of our allies provided
by our military readiness will deteriorate over time. The
impacts of defense sequestration will eat away at our strategic
depth and military capability--inviting aggressors to take
greater risk, increasing the likelihood of conflict, and making
Americans less safe.
For these reasons, as I have for over a year and a half, I
stand ready to work with members of both parties to identify
alternative spending reductions to end defense sequestration
once and for all.
Kelly Ayotte.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. VITTER
The Committee's mark-up reflects the first major step in
the FY14 National Defense Authorization Act process for the
Department of Defense. The NDAA will next be considered by the
full Senate and then conference with the House of
Representatives. However, this bill as written, while it
includes vital funding priorities, unfortunately ignores
sequestration and the Budget Control Act, which means that many
of these programs will face further unstructured cuts.
While it has been argued that there is hope of an agreement
before the NDAA is considered by the full Senate or conference
with the House of Representatives, I believe it is imperative
to set appropriate authorization and serious levels that do not
place significant funding priorities in limbo. The FY 2014
budget request for the Department of Defense comes at a very
challenging time with a unique set of global threats; however,
that does not substitute the need to comply with the current
law or include real guidance for priority decisions.
Drafting measures that do not adhere to the Budget Control
Act (BCA) and its sequester levels is tantamount to failure.
The failure does not rest with the Senate or with the House;
that failure is due to the Department of Defense and the
Administration's inability to adequately prioritize and
communicate those priorities. Previously, the Administration
forced the Military Services to hold off on providing any
clarity or reports on the impacts of sequester. Reports have
surfaced\1\ that the White House Office of Management and
Budget had instructed three separate cabinet agencies that they
were not allowed to talk about pending budget cuts unless they
cleared their remarks first with the White House budget office.
This led Senator Barbara Mikulski to state that the White House
had placed its own cabinet agencies under a ``gag order'' and,
ultimately, to the December 5, 2012 OMB decision to direct\2\
the Pentagon to start sequestration planning. After eighteen
months of requests by members of this committee and two
separate legislative requirements, the White House finally
released a report\3\ in January 2013 on the harmful impacts of
sequester, providing the detail requested only two to three
weeks before sequester was set to hit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/cabinet-under-gag-order-
on-sequester-87231.html
\2\http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118712
\3\http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/08/fact-
sheet-examples-how-sequester-would-impact-middle-class-families-job
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that the DOD is preparing to drastically reduce its
personnel size and restructure its forces over the next years,
it is critical that it budget or identify where the Department
is able to cut while maintaining its primary purpose:
maintaining a ready and capable force prepared for defense of
the nation. Allowing arguments that the budget must go beyond
the BCA and sequester levels due to mismanagement, overruns,
and DOD shortfalls, would only continue the uncertainty and
does nothing to solve the problem at hand.
Analysts largely agree that the DOD budget request was
irrelevant because it did not factor in the BCA levels, did not
contain an OCO Budget (numbers which we now know included huge
shortfalls and continue to expand), and ignored the sequester
even while it was delayed for a month to ``account for
sequester''. Our military desperately needs leadership to put
forth a defense budget that addresses the unprecedented
challenges before us and the budget crisis here at home.
Despite its stated need, the Defense Department is currently
facing a hugely disproportionate amount of the cuts, and the
President continues to submit a budget plan that will
perpetuate increases in federal debt due to non-defense
spending over the next ten years instead of trying to cut
through non-defense. Our military men and women must not be the
sole bearer of balancing our budget.
In fact, during the FY14 NDAA committee markup when Senator
Inhofe tried to address the budget problem through an amendment
that would have partially offset the sequester in a way
previously accepted by the President during negotiations\4\,
Senator Levin did not allow him to bring up his proposal for
debate during the markup process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/factsheet/chained-cpi-
protections
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my view, this signifies Administration and Senate
majority leadership refusing to address the truth about our
budget crisis. Unless President Obama, our Commander in Chief,
provides the necessary leadership to protect the Defense
Department from disproportionate cuts, there is a present and
clear danger (from sequester, the law of the land) that the
funding for this mark will be reduced. The current mode of
operation in Washington appears to be to backload on defense
plans and place the costs and shortfalls on future generations.
That mentality is not something I can support.
David Vitter.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MESSRS. INHOFE, SESSIONS, CHAMBLISS, WICKER, MS.
AYOTTE, MRS. FISCHER, AND MESSRS. VITTER, BLUNT, AND CRUZ
Guantanamo Bay Detainees
The U.S. detention facility at Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, provides a secure location to detain and interrogate enemy
combatants as well as prevent these detainees from returning to
the battlefield. Holding these detainees at Guantanamo Bay has
enabled the U.S. to gather intelligence which has prevented
additional attacks on our country and assisted in tracking down
other members of al Qaeda and associated terrorist
organizations.
Unfortunately, this year's Senate Defense Authorization
bill creates large loopholes which, if enacted, will result in
the transfer of detainees to the shores of our country and
permits the easier conveyance of detainees to foreign
countries. Let there be no mistake, the bill's provisions are a
fundamental shift from previous years' Defense Authorization
Acts which ensured detainees would not be brought to the United
States and would not be transferred to other countries unless
reasonable conditions could be met. Accordingly, we will
resolutely oppose the inclusion of these sections in the final
Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act.
Previously, Congress had addressed this issue through
legislative compromises which: prevented the transfer of
detainees to the United States; blocked the construction or
modification of facilities to house detainees in the United
States; and required stringent certifications to be made before
transferring detainees to foreign nations. These statutes were
built upon a bipartisan consensus, consistent with public
opinion, which was formed after years of congressional debate
and were written to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court.
The previous legislation contrasts greatly from the
provisions included in this year's Senate Defense Authorization
bill. Specifically, the bill permits the transfer of detainees
to the U.S. for trial and detention and to receive medical
care, despite Guantanamo Bay's first rate medical care and
facilities. In addition, due to the Administration's objections
that the current certifications were too difficult to meet, the
bill greatly reduces the thresholds required before a detainee
can be transferred to a foreign country.
The proposal to transfer detainees to the U.S. for trial
and detention does not take into account one of the primary
reasons why the bipartisan consensus arose in the first place.
Specifically, Congress and many Americans disagreed with the
Administration's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the
mastermind of the September 11th attacks, and others in a
federal courthouse located in New York City. This was reflected
by the Senate's 54-41 vote in November 2012, which supported a
permanent prohibition on the transfer of Guantanamo Bay
detainees to the United States. Why then should the Senate so
quickly reverse itself and enact legislation which permits the
very thing so many of our citizens considered the wrong thing
to do?
In addition, why should we reduce the thresholds for
transferring detainees to foreign countries as called for in
this year's Defense Authorization bill? According to a March
2013 report from the Director of National Intelligence, 28
percent of those detainees who have been released continue, or
are suspected to have continued, to engage in terrorist
activity against the U.S. or our allies. For example, after
Said al Shihri was released from Guantanamo Bay, he became one
of the senior leaders of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Why
then should we lower the standards? This is especially true
since current law, specifically, Section 1028 of the Fiscal
Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, requires strict
but reasonable certifications before transferring detainees to
foreign countries.
Adding to the perplexing nature of the bill's provisions is
the fact that housing detainees in the U.S. will cost millions,
perhaps hundreds of millions, more during this period of budget
austerity and sequestration. As FBI Director Robert Mueller
warned, these detainees cannot be placed in normal federal
prisons since there is the very real possibility these
individuals will recruit more terrorists from among the federal
inmate population and attempt to continue al Qaeda operations.
One must remember this is precisely how the individuals
convicted in the 2009 plot to bomb a New York synagogue were
radicalized.
The risk of bringing detainees to the United States
contrasts sharply with the advantages of continuing the use of
the detainee complexes at Guantanamo Bay. The facilities at
Guantanamo Bay are in a secure location away from population
centers. They provide the maximum security required to prevent
escape and are composed of multiple levels of confinement based
upon the detainee's compliance. In addition, the Expeditionary
Legal Complex has recently been completed. This facility is a
secure location to try detainees while enabling their access to
defense counsel and also assists in preventing the compromise
of classified material. The Complex will also permit greater
coverage by the press of the legal proceedings.
The logic of continuing to utilize the established
facilities at Guantanamo Bay also contrasts with the apparent
lack of an in-depth, comprehensive plan by the Administration
to address the enormous security, logistical, and legal issues
which must be resolved before any detainee's transfer to the
United States is even contemplated. In addition, the
Administration's unwillingness to place new detainees in
Guantanamo Bay has forced our armed forces to use makeshift
detention facilities. For example, due to the Administration's
reluctance to use Guantanamo Bay, Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame was
detained and interrogated on a U.S. Navy ship for two months.
Clearly, what is required is a plan for the long-term, law of
war detention outside of the United States for foreign members
of al Qaeda and associated forces, as called for by Senator
Ayotte, Senator Chambliss, and others.
Those of us who voted for the National Defense
Authorization Act in Committee did so based on the agreement
that we will have an opportunity to address these major
shortcomings in the bill when the full Senate considers the
legislation. We look forward to doing so.
In conclusion, we are opposed to the provisions included in
the Senate's version of the Defense Authorization bill which,
if enacted, will permit the transfer of detainees to our
country. Most disappointingly, this represents a fundamental
departure from previous years' Defense Authorization Acts.
Accordingly, we will seek legislative remedies to restore the
statutes which will maintain the current law with respect to
the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees.
James M. Inhofe.
Jeff Sessions.
Saxby Chambliss.
Roger F. Wicker.
Kelly Ayotte.
Deb Fischer.
David Vitter.
Roy Blunt.
Ted Cruz.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MESSRS. INHOFE AND SESSIONS, MS. AYOTTE, MRS.
FISCHER, AND MR. VITTER
Missile Defense
The Committee's direction to deploy an X-band radar, or
comparable sensor, for the defense of the homeland against
long-range ballistic missile threats is a good first step
toward addressing the growing ICBM threat from Iran and,
potentially, other countries. But it does not go far enough: we
also need to proceed as soon as possible with the deployment of
an additional interceptor site on the east coast to compensate
for the loss of the planned third interceptor site in Poland.
The decision by the President not to proceed with
development and deployment of the SM-3 block IIB missile in
Poland means that the defense of the homeland against Iranian
long-range ballistic missiles will not be as effective as
originally intended. Missile defense planners in the Pentagon
have long understood the advantages provided by an additional
missile defense site (beyond those in Alaska and California)
for a more effective defense against long range ballistic
missile threats from the Middle East. The approach taken by the
Bush Administration was to deploy 10 Ground-Based Interceptors
(GBIs) in Poland. The Obama Administration opted, instead, for
the development and deployment of some 24 SM-3 block IIB
missiles in Poland. Both of these options would serve the
similar purpose of defending Europe and the United States
against intermediate to long-range Iranian ballistic missiles.
The Administration's rationale for the 15 March
announcement to deploy an additional 14 GBIs in Alaska, beyond
the current 30, is ``to stay ahead of the long-range ballistic
missile threat posed by North Korea and Iran.''\5\ According to
DoD, the North Korean threat is growing faster than
anticipated: North Korea conducted its third nuclear test in
February, has displayed road-mobile ICBMs, and has demonstrated
long-range missile technology through its launch of the Taepo
Dong-2 rocket, which put a satellite in orbit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\DoD Fact Sheet, ``Strengthening Homeland Missile Defense,''
March 15, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A DoD Fact Sheet notes similar developments in Iran: ``Iran
also continues to advance its space-launch and longer-range
ballistic missile capabilities. Iran has used a space-launch
vehicle, the Safir-2, to place a satellite in orbit,
demonstrating some of the key technologies required for ICBM
development.'' Likewise, General Jacoby, the Commander of U.S.
Northern Command, recently told Congress that ``we should
consider that Iran has a capability within the next few years
of flight testing ICBM capable technologies\6\;'' and that
``the Iranians are intent on developing an ICBM.\7\'' Director
of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified before this
committee on April 18th, that ``The Iranians are pursuing
development of two systems that potentially could have
intercontinental capability . . . The belief is about the first
time they'd be ready to do that would be as early as 2015.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\SASC Hearing, March 19, 2013
\7\HASC Hearing, March 20, 2013
\8\SASC Hearing, April 18, 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the rationale for beefing up our defenses against North
Korea is based on that nation's nuclear ambitions coupled with
advances in long-range missile technology (derived from the
ability to launch satellites), then this similarly argues for
strengthening our defenses against Iran--a country that also
has demonstrated a space launch capability and appears to be
nearing a nuclear weapons capability.
Increasing the numbers of Ground Based Interceptors in
Alaska, as the administration proposes, while sound, is not
sufficient. There are inherent limitations of the Alaska and
California sites. U.S. Strategic Command head, General Robert
Kehler, told Congress that ``I am confident that we can defend
against a limited attack from Iran, although we are not in the
most optimum posture to do that today doesn't provide total
defense today.''\9\ General Jacoby affirmed this when he told
Congress: We have the capability of limited defense right now.
And I think that it's not optimum and I think that we've made
some important steps forward in what was rolled out. And I
think we need to continue to assess the threat and make sure we
stay ahead of it.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\SASC Hearing, March 12, 2013
\10\SASC Hearing , March 19, 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An additional homeland missile defense site on the East
Coast would raise the probability of successfully engaging
Iranian threats and preserve GBI inventory in Alaska for North
Korean threats. A study conducted by the National Research
Council of the National Academies explains:
``While it is kinematically possible to defend the
eastern part of the continental United States (CONUS)
against threat ICBMs from the Middle East using GBI
sites at Fort Greely and Vandenberg, AFB, an additional
GBI site located in northeastern CONUS would be much
more effective and reliable and would allow
considerably more battle space and firing doctrine
options.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\National Research Council, ``Making Sense of Ballistic Missile
Defense,'' Washington, D.C., 2012, p.85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Jacoby explained this to Congress in similar terms:
``What a third site gives me, whether it's on the
East Coast or an alternate location, would be increased
battle space; that means increased opportunity for me
to engage threats from either Iran or North
Korea.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\SASC Hearing, March 19, 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``I would agree that a third site, wherever the
decision is to build a third site, would give me better
weapons access, increased GBI inventory and allow us
the battle space to more optimize our defense against
future threats from Iran and North Korea.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\HASC Hearing, March 20, 2013
Though acknowledging the potential advantages provided by
an East Coast site, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Dr.
James Miller, told Congressional staff in March that the
additional 14 GBIs in Alaska could compensate for the
termination of the SM-3 Block IIB missile (``which was designed
to provide a first shot at any Iranian missile that could be
coming towards the United States.''\14\). However, as noted by
Generals Jacoby and Kehler (and by the National Research
Council), this approach is not optimal. Rather than defend the
United States only from Alaska, an east coast missile defense
site would increase the probability of successfully engaging an
Iranian threat by providing increased battle space, multiple
shot opportunities, and different angles of attack, supported
by different sensors. Moreover, if those additional 14 missiles
are needed to defend against a growing threat from North Korea,
which is the Administration's rationale for deploying them,\15\
those weapons may not be available in a scenario where the U.S.
is threatened simultaneously by Iran and North Korea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Words of General Jacoby, HASC hearing, March 20, 2013)
\15\DoD Spokesman said on March 26, 2013: ``The decision to place
additional ground-based interceptors in Alaska is really in large
measure to growing North Korean threats and the development of their
own missile programs. It's very clear.'' U.S. Takes N. Korea Threats
very seriously,'' AFP, March 26, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the cost of an east coast missile defense site,
it is hard for the administration to argue it can't afford an
east coast site when the budget of the Missile Defense Agency
has seen drastic cuts over the past few years. The President's
5-year spending plan for MDA for FY2012-2016 amounted to $43.5
billion; for the five year plan from FY 2014-2018, that amount
declined by $5.9 billion to $37.6 billion. Moreover, the
cancelation of the SM-3 block IIB missile and the Precision
Tracking Space System by the President means that MDA avoids
some $3.5 billion in spending over the next five years. Had
those savings been returned to the Missile Defense Agency,
there would have been ample funding for an East Coast site.
The administration is conducting environmental impact
studies for three potential locations, as directed by the FY
2013 NDAA (due by December 31, 2013). The provision (Sec. 227)
also requires the MDA to develop a contingency plan in case the
president determines to proceed with such an additional
deployment.
While these studies will determine the optimal location for
an additional homeland missile defense site, we need not await
this analysis before determining whether such a deployment is
in the interests of the United States.
There remains a presidentially directed requirement for a
missile defense site--beyond the sites in Alaska and
California--explicitly for the defense of the homeland. With
the cancelation of the SM-3 block IIB missile (intended for
Poland), that requirement remains unmet. An east coast missile
defense site can meet that need and should proceed as
expeditiously as possible.
An east coast missile defense site would provide important
additional protection against an Iranian ICBM inbound for the
east coast of the United States that the U.S. currently does
not have and that 14 additional ground based interceptors in
Alaska will not provide.
If we start today, there will be a 3-4 year gap between the
potential emergence of this Iranian capability and our ability
to have this needed additional protection.
We do not need more delay. The intercontinental ballistic
missile threat from Iran is emerging quickly, and the
protection of the east coast of the United States against this
threat must be improved. If we fail to move ahead with an east
coast missile defense site expeditiously, we are placing the
nation at more risk than can be justified.
James M. Inhofe.
Jeff Sessions.
Kelly Ayotte.
Deb Fischer.
David Vitter.