[Senate Report 112-173]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 419
112th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 112-173
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
R E P O R T
[to accompany s. 3254]
on
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 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
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
----------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
June 4, 2012.--Ordered to be printed
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
Calendar No. 419
112th Congress Report
SENATE
2nd Session 112-173
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
R E P O R T
[to accompany s. 3254]
on
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 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
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
----------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
June 4, 2012.--Ordered to be printed
------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-387 WASHINGTON : 2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer
Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or
866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JACK REED, Rhode Island JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
JIM WEBB, Virginia ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
MARK BEGICH, Alaska SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN CORNYN, Texas
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director
Ann E. Sauer, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Purpose of the Bill.............................................. 1
Committee overview....................................... 2
Scoring of budgetary effects (sec. 4).................... 3
Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget
implication............................................ 3
Summary of National Defense Authorizations For Fiscal
Year 2013 Table.................................... 4
National Defense Budget Authority Implication Table.......... 9
Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations................. 11
Title I--Procurement............................................. 11
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 11
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)............... 11
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 11
Multiyear procurement authority for Army CH-47F
helicopters (sec. 111)................................. 11
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 11
Refueling and complex overhaul of the U.S.S. Abraham
Lincoln (sec. 121)..................................... 11
Ford Class Aircraft Carriers (sec. 122).................. 11
Limitation on availability of amounts for second Ford
class aircraft carrier (sec. 123)...................... 12
Multiyear procurement authority for Virginia class
submarine program (sec. 124)........................... 12
Multiyear procurement authority for Arleigh Burke class
destroyers and associated systems (sec. 125)........... 13
Authority for relocation of certain Aegis weapon system
assets between and within the DDG-51 class destroyer
and Aegis Ashore Programs in order to meet mission
requirements (sec. 126)................................ 14
Designation of mission modules of the littoral combat
ship as a major defense acquisition program (sec. 127). 15
Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Procurement of
Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps funds (sec. 128)..... 16
Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Procurement, Marine
Corps funds for procurement of weapons and combat
vehicles (sec. 129).................................... 16
Sense of Congress on Marine Corps amphibious lift and
presence requirements (sec. 130)....................... 16
Sense of Senate on Department of Navy fiscal year 2014
budget request for tactical aviation aircraft (sec.
131)................................................... 17
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 17
Reduction in number of aircraft required to be maintained
in strategic airlift aircraft inventory (sec. 141)..... 17
Treatment of certain programs for the F-22A Raptor
aircraft as major defense acquisition program (sec.
142)................................................... 17
Avionics systems for C-130 aircraft (sec. 143)........... 19
Procurement of space-based infrared system satellites
(sec. 144)............................................. 19
Transfer of certain fiscal year 2011 and 2012 funds for
aircraft procurement for the Air Force (sec. 145)...... 20
Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters................... 20
Multiyear procurement authority for V-22 Joint Aircraft
Program (sec. 151)..................................... 20
Limitation on availability of funds for full-rate
production of Handheld, Manpack, and Small Form/Fit
radios under the Joint Tactical Radio System program
(sec. 152)............................................. 20
Shallow Water Combat Submersible Program (sec. 153)...... 21
Budget Items................................................. 22
Army..................................................... 22
Joint tactical radio systems integration............. 22
M88A2 improved recovery vehicle...................... 22
Advanced procurement for M1 Abrams tank upgrade
program............................................ 22
Lightweight .50 caliber machine gun.................. 24
30mm and 40mm ammunition reductions for excess....... 24
Excalibur 1-b round schedule delay................... 25
Spider network munitions reduction................... 25
Family of medium tactical vehicles................... 25
Joint tactical radio system airborne and maritime/
fixed radios....................................... 25
Spider remote control unit........................... 25
Sense-through-the-wall sensor program................ 25
Small unmanned ground vehicle........................ 26
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............ 26
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund........ 26
Navy..................................................... 26
F/A-18E/F............................................ 26
Close-in weapon system modifications................. 27
81mm, grenade, and demolition munitions reductions
for excess......................................... 27
Air Force................................................ 27
Joint surveillance/target attack radar system........ 27
Defense-wide............................................. 29
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.................. 29
Special operations aviation.......................... 30
High definition full motion video.................... 30
Items of Special Interest.................................... 31
Common remotely operated weapon station.................. 31
Impact of Global Hawk Block 30 termination............... 31
Integrated base defense.................................. 31
Joint strike fighter program............................. 32
Paladin integrated management program.................... 34
Rotary-wing planning tools............................... 34
Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget
implication............................................ 34
Use of advance procurement for major systems............. 35
U.S. Special Operations Command Budget line items........ 36
Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............ 37
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 37
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)............... 37
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 37
Next Generation Foundry for the Defense Microelectronics
Activity (sec. 211).................................... 37
Advanced rotorcraft initiative (sec. 212)................ 37
Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Navy research,
development, test, and evaluation funds (sec. 213)..... 40
Authority for Department of Defense laboratories to enter
into education partnerships with educational
institutions in United States territories and
possessions (sec. 214)................................. 41
Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Air Force research,
development, test, and evaluation funds (sec. 215)..... 41
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Matters.......................... 41
Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 231)............ 41
Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 232)............ 42
Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233)....... 42
Next-generation Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (sec. 234).. 43
Modernization of the Patriot air and missile defense
system (sec. 235)...................................... 44
Medium Extended Air Defense System (sec. 236)............ 44
Availability of funds for Iron Dome short-range rocket
defense program (sec. 237)............................. 45
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 45
Mission packages for the littoral combat ship (sec. 251). 45
Comptroller General of the United States annual reports
on the acquisition program for the Amphibious Combat
Vehicle (sec. 252)..................................... 46
Conditional requirement for report on amphibious assault
vehicles for the Marine Corps (sec. 253)............... 46
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 47
Transfer of administration of Ocean Research and
Resources Advisory Panel from Department of the Navy to
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (sec.
271)................................................... 47
Budget Items................................................. 47
Army..................................................... 47
Medium Extended Air Defense System................... 47
Improved turbine engine program...................... 48
Air Force................................................ 48
Next generation aerial refueling aircraft............ 48
Defense-wide............................................. 49
Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict Advanced
Development and Combatting Terrorism Technology
Support............................................ 49
Industrial base innovation fund...................... 50
Defense microelectronics strategy and Next Generation
Foundry............................................ 50
Advanced sensor applications program................. 52
U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs.... 52
Department of Defense Corrosion Program shortfall.... 53
Defense research and development Rapid Innovation
Program science and technology thrust areas........ 53
General fund enterprise business systems realignment. 55
Developmental test and evaluation.................... 56
Shallow Water Combat Submersible Program............. 56
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs... 56
Items of Special Interest.................................... 58
Adaptive engine technology development program........... 58
Air Force cyber and information technology research...... 58
Air Force space developmental test and evaluation........ 59
Applied mathematics and computational science............ 59
Army manned airborne intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance platforms............................... 60
Army robotics............................................ 61
Ballistic missile defense overview....................... 62
Cyber research, development, test, and evaluation, and
training infrastructure................................ 67
Department of Defense labs workforce and infrastructure.. 69
Dry Combat Submersible................................... 70
Energy efficiency research and development coordination
and transition......................................... 70
Hexavalent chromium...................................... 71
Human bone collections for Department of Defense research 71
Hypersonics ground test and evaluation capabilities and
workforce.............................................. 71
Internet cartography..................................... 73
Massachusetts Institute of Technology--Lincoln Laboratory
improvement project.................................... 74
Medical Countermeasures Initiative....................... 74
Naval electromagnetic railgun projectiles................ 75
Naval Engineering Education Center....................... 75
Support for the Minerva Research Initiative.............. 76
Title III--Operation and Maintenance............................. 79
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 79
Operation and maintenance funding (sec. 301)............. 79
Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions.............. 79
Department of Defense guidance on environmental exposures
at military installations (sec. 311)................... 79
Funding of agreements under the Sikes Act (sec. 312)..... 80
Limitation on availability of funds for procurement of
alternative fuel (sec. 313)............................ 80
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 81
Repeal of certain provisions relating to depot-level
maintenance (sec. 321)................................. 81
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 82
Annual report on Department of Defense long-term
corrosion strategy (sec. 331).......................... 82
Modified deadline for Comptroller General review of
annual report on prepositioned materiel and equipment
(sec. 332)............................................. 82
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 82
Savings to be achieved in civilian workforce and
contractor employee workforce of the Department of
Defense (sec. 341)..................................... 82
NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 342).......... 83
Repeal of redundant authority to ensure interoperability
of law enforcement and emergency responder training
(sec. 343)............................................. 84
Budget Items................................................. 84
General Fund Enterprise Business System realignment...... 84
Museum funding decrease for ahead of need request........ 84
Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances........... 85
U.S. Special Operations Command Operation and Maintenance 85
Defense Security Cooperation Agency...................... 85
Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request.. 86
Enhanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
support to Operation Observant Compass................. 86
Operation and Maintenance funding for impact aid......... 87
Items of Special Interest.................................... 87
Advanced predictive modeling and simulation methodologies 87
Air Force strategic basing process....................... 88
Canines in support of members of the armed forces........ 88
Comptroller General of the United States assessment of
Department of Defense security cooperation activities.. 88
Consideration of fuel cell systems....................... 89
Corrosion prevention..................................... 89
Corrosion projects return on investment and funding for
corrosion-related activities........................... 90
Critical manufacturing capabilities and capacities....... 91
Department of Defense inventory management............... 91
Energy performance savings contracts..................... 92
Essential role of rare earth materials................... 92
Funding shortfalls for minimum capital investment
program, facilities sustainment, restoration, and
modernization, and base operations support............. 92
Ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms............ 93
Lack of competition in Air Force C-17 engine maintenance
contracting............................................ 94
Marine Corps depot maintenance activity group............ 95
Modernizing the aging fleet.............................. 95
Rapid equipping and fielding initiatives................. 95
Readiness support for unfunded requirements.............. 96
Report on Defense Science Board climate change
recommendations........................................ 96
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations...................... 99
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 99
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)............... 99
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 100
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............ 100
End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of
the reserves (sec. 412)................................ 100
End strengths for military technicians (dual status)
(sec. 413)............................................. 101
Fiscal year 2013 limitation on number of non-dual status
technicians (sec. 414)................................. 101
Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support (sec. 415)......... 101
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 102
Military personnel (sec. 421)............................ 102
Budget Item.................................................. 102
Military personnel funding changes....................... 102
Title V--Military Personnel Policy............................... 103
Subtitle A--Officer Policy................................... 103
Extension of relaxation of limitation on selective early
discharges (sec. 501).................................. 103
Exception to 30-year retirement for regular Navy warrant
officers in the grade of chief warrant officer, W-5
(sec. 502)............................................. 103
Modification of definition of joint duty assignment to
include all instructor assignments for joint training
and education (sec. 503)............................... 103
Sense of Senate on inclusion of assignments as academic
instructor at the military service academies as joint
duty assignments (sec. 504)............................ 104
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 104
Authority for appointment of persons who are lawful
permanent residents as officers of the National Guard
(sec. 511)............................................. 104
Reserve component suicide prevention and resilience
program (sec. 512)..................................... 104
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 104
Diversity in the armed forces and related reporting
requirements (sec. 521)................................ 104
Modification of authority to conduct programs on career
flexibility to enhance retention of members of the
armed forces (sec. 522)................................ 105
Authority for additional behavioral health professionals
to conduct pre-separation medical examinations for
post-traumatic stress disorder (sec. 523).............. 105
Quarterly reports on involuntary separation of members of
the armed forces (sec. 524)............................ 105
Review of eligibility of victims of domestic terrorism
for award of the Purple Heart and the Defense Medal of
Freedom (sec. 525)..................................... 105
Subtitle D--Military Justice and legal Matters Generally..... 106
Clarification and enhancement of the role of the Staff
Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps
(sec. 531)............................................. 106
Additional information in reports on annual surveys of
the committee on the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(sec. 532)............................................. 106
Subtitle E--Sexual Assault, Hazing, and Related Matters...... 107
Authority to retain or recall to active duty reserve
component members who are victims of sexual assault
while on active duty (sec. 541)........................ 107
Additional elements in comprehensive Department of
Defense policy on sexual assault prevention and
response (sec. 542).................................... 107
Hazing in the armed forces (sec. 543).................... 108
Subtitle F--Education and Training........................... 108
Inclusion of the School of Advanced Military Studies
Senior Level Course as a senior level service school
(sec. 551)............................................. 108
Modification of eligibility for associate degree programs
under the Community College of the Air Force (sec. 552) 108
Support of Naval Academy Athletic Programs (sec. 553).... 108
Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical
accession programs (sec. 554).......................... 109
Authority for service commitment for Reservists who
accept fellowships, scholarships, or grants to be
performed in the Selected Reserve (sec. 555)........... 109
Repeal of requirement for eligibility for in-state
tuition of at least 50 percent of participants in
Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program (sec.
556)................................................... 110
Modification of requirements on plan to increase the
number of units of the Junior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps (sec. 557).............................. 110
Consolidation of military department authority to issue
arms, tentage, and equipment to educational
institutions not maintaining units of the Junior ROTC
(sec. 558)............................................. 111
Modification of requirement for reports in Federal
Register on institutions of higher education ineligible
for contracts and grants for denial of ROTC or military
recruiter access to campus (sec. 559).................. 111
Comptroller General of the United States report on the
Reserve Officers' Training Corps (sec. 560)............ 111
Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education and Military....... 112
Family Readiness Matters................................. 112
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec.
571)................................................... 112
Continuation of authority to assist local educational
agencies that benefit dependents of members of the
armed forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees (sec. 572)................................... 112
Amendments to the impact aid program (sec. 573).......... 112
Military spouses (sec. 574).............................. 112
Modification of authority to allow Department of Defense
domestic dependent elementary and secondary schools to
enroll certain students (sec. 575)..................... 112
Sense of Congress regarding support for Yellow Ribbon Day
(sec. 576)............................................. 113
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 113
Family briefings concerning accountings for members of
the armed forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees listed as missing (sec. 581)................. 113
Enhancement of authority to accept gifts and services
(sec. 582)............................................. 113
Clarification of authorized Fisher House residents at the
Fisher House for the Families of the Fallen and
Meditation Pavilion at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware
(sec. 583)............................................. 113
Report on accuracy of data in the Defense Enrollment
Eligibility Reporting System (sec. 584)................ 113
Items of Special Interest.................................... 114
American Bar Association Military Pro Bono Project....... 114
Army's sexual assault and special investigation training. 115
Assessment of skills and abilities to enhance transition
from military service.................................. 115
Crime Victims' Rights Act................................ 115
Department of Defense Inspector General oversight of
investigations of sexual assault....................... 116
Inclusion of synthetic drug compounds in the Uniform Code
of Military Justice.................................... 116
Joint Professional Military Education special areas of
emphasis............................................... 116
Recruiting for cyber-related career fields............... 117
Report on assignment policies concerning women in the
armed forces and the characterization of certain
combat-related service................................. 117
Report on specialized graduate programs.................. 118
Requirement for Council of Governors views on legislative
proposals addressing child custody litigation involving
members of the armed forces............................ 118
Social media and operational security.................... 119
Special Operations Force Generation...................... 120
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits...... 121
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 121
Rates of basic allowance for housing for Army National
Guard and Air National Guard members on full-time
National Guard duty (sec. 601)......................... 121
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 121
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611).............. 121
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612)... 121
One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities
for nuclear officers (sec. 613)........................ 122
One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37
consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus
authorities (sec. 614)................................. 122
One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of
other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)..... 122
Increase in amount of officer affiliation bonus for
officers in the Selected Reserve (sec. 616)............ 122
Increase in maximum amount of incentive bonus for reserve
component members who convert military occupational
specialty to ease personnel shortages (sec. 617)....... 122
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............
Permanent change of station allowances for members of
Selected Reserve units filling a vacancy in another
unit after being involuntarily separated (sec. 631).... 122
Authority for comprehensive program for space-available
travel on Department of Defense aircraft (sec. 632).... 123
Subtitle D--Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits... 124
Repeal of requirement for payment of Survivor Benefit
Plan premiums when participant waives retired pay to
provide a survivor annuity under Federal Employees
Retirement System and termination of payment of
Survivor Benefit Plan annuity (sec. 641)............... 124
Repeal of automatic enrollment in Family Servicemembers'
Group Life Insurance for members of the armed forces
married to other members (sec. 642).................... 124
Subtitle E--Military Lending Matters......................... 124
Enhancement of protections on consumer credit for members
of the armed forces and their dependents (sec. 651).... 124
Additional enhancements of protections on consumer credit
for members of the armed forces and their dependents
(sec. 652)............................................. 124
Relief in civil actions for violations of protections on
consumer credit extended to members of the armed forces
and their dependents (sec. 653)........................ 125
Modification of definition of dependent for purposes of
limitations on terms of consumer credit extended to
members of the armed forces and their dependents (sec.
654)................................................... 125
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 125
Transitional compensation for dependent children who are
carried during pregnancy at time of dependent-abuse
offense (sec. 661)..................................... 125
Title VII--Health Care Provisions................................ 127
Subtitle A--TRICARE Program.................................. 127
Extension of TRICARE Standard coverage and TRICARE dental
program for members of the Selected Reserve who are
involuntarily separated (sec. 701)..................... 127
Inclusion of certain over-the-counter drugs in TRICARE
uniform formulary (sec. 702)........................... 127
Expansion of evaluation of the effectiveness of the
TRICARE program (sec. 703)............................. 127
Subtitle B--Other Health Care Benefits....................... 128
Use of Department of Defense funds for abortions in cases
of rape and incest (sec. 711).......................... 128
Availability of certain fertility preservation treatments
for members of the armed forces on active duty (sec.
712)................................................... 128
Modification of requirements on mental health assessments
for members of the armed forces deployed in connection
with a contingency operation (sec. 713)................ 128
Subtitle C--Health Care Administration....................... 128
Clarification of applicability of certain authority and
requirements to subcontractors employed to provide
health care services to the Department of Defense (sec.
721)................................................... 128
Research program to enhance Department of Defense efforts
on mental health in the National Guard and reserves
through community partnerships (sec. 722).............. 129
Subtitle D--Reports and Other Matters........................ 129
Reports on performance data on Warriors in Transition
programs (sec. 731).................................... 129
Report on Department of Defense support of members of the
armed forces who experience traumatic injury as a
result of vaccinations required by the Department (sec.
732)................................................... 129
Plan to eliminate gaps and redundancies in programs of
the Department of Defense on psychological health and
traumatic brain injury among members of the armed
forces (sec. 733)...................................... 130
Report on implementation of recommendations of the
Comptroller General of the United States on prevention
of hearing loss among members of the armed forces (sec.
734)................................................... 130
Items of Special Interest.................................... 131
Comptroller General study on Department of Defense health
care contracting....................................... 131
Cooperative health care agreements....................... 132
Health care provider appointment and compensation
authorities............................................ 132
Medication therapy management............................ 133
Standards for production and performance of prostheses
and prosthetic sockets for military amputees........... 134
TRICARE efficiencies..................................... 135
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and
Related Matters................................................ 137
Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition
Programs................................................... 137
Limitation on use of cost-type contracts (sec. 801)...... 137
Acquisition strategies for major subsystems and
subassemblies on major defense acquisition programs
(sec. 802)............................................. 137
Management structure for developmental test and
evaluation (sec. 803).................................. 138
Assessments of potential termination liability of
contracts for the development or production of major
defense acquisition programs (sec. 804)................ 139
Technical change regarding programs experiencing critical
cost growth due to change in quantity purchased (sec.
805)................................................... 139
Repeal of requirement to review ongoing programs
initiated before enactment of Milestone B certification
and approval process (sec. 806)........................ 140
Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 140
One-year extension of temporary limitation on aggregate
annual amount available for contract services (sec.
821)................................................... 140
Prohibition of excessive pass-through contracts and
charges in the acquisition of services (sec. 822)...... 141
Availability of amounts in Defense Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund for temporary members of workforce
(sec. 823)............................................. 141
Department of Defense policy on contractor profits (sec.
824)................................................... 142
Modification of authorities on internal controls for
procurements on behalf of the Department of Defense by
certain non-defense agencies (sec. 825)................ 142
Extension of pilot program on management of supply-chain
risk (sec. 826)........................................ 143
Subtitle C--Amendments Relating to General Contracting
Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations................... 143
Applicability of Truth in Negotiations Act to major
systems and related subsystems, components, and support
services (sec. 841).................................... 143
Maximum amount of allowable costs of compensation of
contractor employees (sec. 842)........................ 144
Department of Defense access to and use of contractor
internal audit reports (sec. 843)...................... 144
Enhancement of whistleblower protections for contractor
employees (sec. 844)................................... 145
Extension of contractor conflict of interest limitations
(sec. 845)............................................. 146
Repeal of sunset for certain protests of task and
delivery order contracts (sec. 846).................... 146
Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Wartime Contracting....... 147
Responsibility within Department of Defense for contract
support for overseas contingency operations (sec. 861). 147
Annual reports on contract support for overseas
contingency operations involving combat operations
(sec. 862)............................................. 147
Inclusion of contract support in certain requirements for
Department of Defense planning, joint professional
military education, and management structure (sec. 863) 147
Risk assessment and mitigation for contractor performance
of critical functions in support of overseas
contingency operations (sec. 864)...................... 148
Extension and modification of reports on contracting in
Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 865)........................ 149
Extension of temporary authority to acquire products and
services in countries along a major route of supply to
Afghanistan (sec. 866)................................. 149
Compliance with Berry amendment required for uniform
components supplied to Afghanistan military or
Afghanistan National Police (sec. 867)................. 149
Sense of the Senate on the contributions of Latvia and
other North Atlantic Treaty Organization member nations
to the success of the Northern Distribution Network
(sec. 868)............................................. 149
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 150
Requirements and limitations for suspension and debarment
officials of the Department of Defense (sec. 881)...... 150
Uniform contract writing system requirements for the
Department of Defense (sec. 882)....................... 150
Comptroller General of the United States review of use by
the Department of Defense of urgent and compelling
exception to competition (sec. 883).................... 150
Authority to provide fee-for-service inspection and
testing by Defense Contract Management Agency for
certain critical equipment in the absence of a
procurement contract (sec. 884)........................ 151
Disestablishment of Defense Materiel Readiness Board
(sec. 885)............................................. 151
Modification of period of wait following notice to
Congress of intent to contract for leases of certain
vessels and vehicles (sec. 886)........................ 151
Extension of other transaction authority (sec. 887)...... 151
Items of Special Interest.................................... 151
Competition in the development and procurement of
training systems for major ground and airborne vehicle
programs............................................... 151
Engagement with independent experts and interested
parties in implementation of counterfeit parts
legislation............................................ 152
Implementation of section 811 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010................. 152
Inventories and reviews of contracts for services........ 153
Joint Urgent Operational Needs and Joint Emergent
Operational Needs...................................... 154
Recommendations by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
on the involvement by the service chiefs in the
acquisition of major weapon systems.................... 156
Reverse auctions......................................... 157
Strategic sourcing and spend analyses.................... 157
Treatment of procurements on behalf of the Department of
Defense in accordance with the interagency agreement
between the Department of Defense and the Department of
Energy................................................. 158
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management...... 159
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management................. 159
Definition and report on terms ``preparation of the
environment'' and ``operational preparation of the
environment'' for joint doctrine purposes (sec. 901)... 159
Expansion of duties and responsibilities of the Nuclear
Weapons Council (sec. 902)............................. 159
Subtitle B--Space Activities................................. 160
Operationally Responsive Space Program Office (sec. 911). 160
Commercial space launch cooperation (sec. 912)........... 161
Reports on integration of acquisition and capability
delivery schedules for components for major satellite
acquisition programs and funding for such programs
(sec. 913)............................................. 161
Department of Defense representation in dispute
resolution regarding surrender of Department of Defense
bands of electromagnetic frequencies (sec. 914)........ 161
Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related and Cyber Matters........... 161
Authority to provide geospatial intelligence support to
security alliances and international and regional
organizations (sec. 921)............................... 161
Army Distributed Common Ground System (sec. 922)......... 162
Rationalization of cyber networks and cyber personnel of
the Department of Defense (sec. 923)................... 163
Next-generation host-based cyber security system for the
Department of Defense (sec. 924)....................... 164
Improvements of security, quality, and competition in
computer software procured by the Department of Defense
(sec. 925)............................................. 165
Competition in connection with Department of Defense data
link systems (sec. 926)................................ 168
Integration of critical signals intelligence capabilities
(sec. 927)............................................. 168
Collection and analysis of network flow data (sec. 928).. 169
Department of Defense use of National Security Agency
cloud computing database and intelligence community
cloud computing infrastructure and services (sec. 929). 170
Electro-optical imagery (sec. 930)....................... 172
Software licenses of the Department of Defense (sec. 931) 175
Defense Clandestine Service (sec. 932)................... 176
Authority for short-term extension of lease for aircraft
supporting the Blue Devil intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance program (sec. 933).................. 177
Sense of the Senate on potential security risks to
Department of Defense networks (sec. 934).............. 177
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 178
National Language Service Corps (sec. 941)............... 178
Report on education and training and promotion rates for
pilots of remotely piloted aircraft (sec. 942)......... 178
Budget Items................................................. 178
Operationally Responsive Space Funding................... 178
Space Test Program....................................... 179
Items of Special Interest.................................... 179
Determination of accuracy of spectrum auction proceeds... 179
Development of cyber security expertise and partnerships. 180
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program................ 180
Navigation location and tracking in GPS-denied
environments........................................... 182
Reports on airborne intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance requirements and investment strategy.... 182
Report on cost savings in the Joint Space Operations
Center Mission System Program.......................... 183
Title X--General Provisions...................................... 185
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 185
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)................... 185
Authority to transfer of funds to the National Nuclear
Security Administration to sustain nuclear weapons
modernization (sec. 1002).............................. 185
Audit readiness of Department of Defense statements of
budgetary resources (sec. 1003)........................ 185
Report on effects of budget sequestration on the
Department of Defense (sec. 1004)...................... 185
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 186
Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide
support to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-
terrorism activities (sec. 1011)....................... 186
Requirement for biennial certification on provision of
support for counter-drug activities to certain foreign
governments (sec. 1012)................................ 186
Authority to support the unified counterdrug and
counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1013)...... 186
Quarterly reports on use of funds in the Drug
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide
account (sec. 1014).................................... 187
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 187
Retirement of naval vessels (sec. 1021).................. 187
Termination of a Maritime Prepositioning Ship squadron
(sec. 1022)............................................ 188
Sense of Congress on recapitalization for the Navy and
Coast Guard (sec. 1023)................................ 188
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism................................. 189
Extension of certain prohibitions and requirements
relating to detainees at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031)....................... 189
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 189
Enhancement of responsibilities of the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the National Military
Strategy (sec. 1041)................................... 189
Modification of authority on training of special
operations forces with friendly foreign forces (sec.
1042).................................................. 189
Extension of authority to provide assured business
guarantees to carriers participating in Civil Reserve
Air Fleet (sec. 1043).................................. 190
Participation of veterans in the Transition Assistance
Program of the Department of Defense (sec. 1044)....... 190
Modification of the Ministry of Defense Advisors Program
(sec. 1045)............................................ 190
Interagency collaboration on unmanned aircraft systems
(sec. 1046)............................................ 191
Sense of Senate on notice to Congress on unfunded
priorities (sec. 1047)................................. 192
Subtitle F--Reports.......................................... 192
Report on strategic airlift aircraft (sec. 1061)......... 192
Repeal of biennial report on the Global Positioning
System (sec. 1062)..................................... 192
Repeal of annual report on threat posed by weapons of
mass destruction, ballistic missiles, and cruise
missiles (sec. 1063)................................... 192
Subtitle G--Nuclear Matters.................................. 192
Strategic delivery system (sec. 1071).................... 192
Requirements definition for combined warhead for certain
missile systems (sec. 1072)............................ 193
Congressional Budget Office estimate of costs of nuclear
weapons and delivery systems (sec. 1073)............... 193
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 193
Redesignation of Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies
as the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense
Studies (sec. 1081).................................... 193
Technical amendments to repeal statutory references to
United States Joint Forces Command (sec. 1082)......... 193
Sense of Congress on non-United States citizens who are
graduates of United States educational institutions
with advanced degrees in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (sec. 1083)............... 193
Items of Special Interest.................................... 194
Arctic region............................................ 194
B-52 Combat Network Communications Study................. 195
B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement......................... 195
Clarification of scope of requirements for periodic
detention review of individuals detained at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba............. 195
Combat Network Communications Technology................. 196
Funds transfers between Department of Defense accounts... 196
Government Accountability Office Report on duplication,
overlap and fragmentation in federal programs.......... 198
Government Accountability Office review of the Nuclear
Command, Control and Communications System............. 199
Hazard assessments related to new construction of
obstructions on military installations and operations.. 199
Impacts of ``Sequestration'' on the Department of Defense 200
Resiliency and survivability for nuclear air-launched
cruise and missile basing.............................. 201
Roles of the Air Force Global Strike Command and Air
Combat Command......................................... 202
Safety and security standards for Department of Defense
hazardous materials transport.......................... 202
Use of general purpose forces and special operations
forces for security force assistance................... 203
Vacancies in critical Inspector General positions........ 204
Working partnerships with State and local law enforcement
authorities............................................ 204
Title XI--Civilian Personnel Matters............................. 207
Authority for transportation of family household pets of
civilian personnel during evacuation of non-essential
personnel (sec. 1101).................................. 207
Expansion of experimental personnel program for
scientific and technical personnel at the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (sec. 1102).......... 207
One-year extension of discretionary authority to grant
allowances, benefits, and gratuities to personnel on
official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1103)............. 207
Item of Special Interest..................................... 207
Department of Defense strategic workforce plan........... 207
Title XII--Matters Relating to Foreign Nations................... 209
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 209
Extension of authority to build the capacity of foreign
military forces and modification of notice in
connection with initiation of activities (sec. 1201)... 209
Extension of authority for non-reciprocal exchange of
defense personnel between the United States and foreign
countries (sec. 1202).................................. 209
Authority to build the capacity of certain
counterterrorism forces in Yemen and East Africa (sec.
1203).................................................. 209
Limitation on availability of funds for State Partnership
Program (sec. 1204).................................... 210
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan................................................... 210
Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan
(sec. 1211)............................................ 210
Extension of authority to support operations and
activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in
Iraq (sec. 1212)....................................... 211
One-year extension and modification of authority to use
funds for reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec.
1213).................................................. 211
One-year extension and modification of authority for
program to develop and carry out infrastructure
projects in Afghanistan (sec. 1214).................... 211
Extension of Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (sec. 1215). 212
Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement
of certain coalition nations for support provided to
United States military operations (sec. 1216).......... 213
Extension and modification of logistical support for
coalition forces supporting certain United States
military operations (sec. 1217)........................ 213
Strategy for supporting the achievement of a secure
presidential election in Afghanistan in 2014 (sec.
1218).................................................. 214
Independent assessment of the Afghan National Security
Forces (sec. 1219)..................................... 214
Report on Afghanistan Peace and Reintegration Program
(sec. 1220)............................................ 214
Subtitle C--Reports.......................................... 215
Review and reports on Department of Defense efforts to
build the capacity of and partner with foreign security
forces (sec. 1231)..................................... 215
Additional elements in annual report on military and
security developments involving the People's Republic
of China (sec. 1232)................................... 215
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 216
Improved administration of the American, British,
Canadian, and Australian Armies' Program (sec. 1241)... 216
United States participation in Headquarters Eurocorps
(sec. 1242)............................................ 216
Department of Defense participation in European program
on multilateral exchange of air transportation and air
refueling services (sec. 1243)......................... 217
Authority to establish program to provide assistance to
foreign civilians for harm incident to combat
operations of the armed forces in foreign countries
(sec. 1244)............................................ 217
Limitation on availability of funds for certain capital
projects in connection with overseas contingency
operations (sec. 1245)................................. 218
Items of Special Interest.................................... 218
Insider threat........................................... 218
North Atlantic Treaty Organization capabilities and
burden-sharing......................................... 219
Review of United States-Egypt military-to-military
relations.............................................. 219
Special operations security force assistance activities.. 220
Title XIII--Cooperative Threat Reduction......................... 223
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and
funds (sec. 1301).......................................... 223
Funding allocations (sec. 1302).............................. 223
Item of Special Interest..................................... 223
Metrics for Cooperative Threat Reduction................. 223
Title XIV--Other Authorizations.................................. 225
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 225
Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)........................ 225
National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)................ 225
Defense Health Program (sec. 1403)....................... 225
Chemical agents and munitions destruction, defense (sec.
1404).................................................. 225
Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-
wide (sec. 1405)....................................... 225
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1406).................... 225
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile....................... 225
Release of materials needed for national defense purposes
from the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpile
(sec. 1411)............................................ 225
Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Matters................ 226
Supplemental chemical agent and munitions destruction
technologies at Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, and
Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky (sec. 1421)............ 226
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 227
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home (sec. 1431)............................ 227
Additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support
Teams (sec. 1432)...................................... 227
Budget Items................................................. 228
Defense Health Program funding........................... 228
Demand Reduction Program--expanded drug testing.......... 228
Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan...... 229
Title XV--Authorization of Appropriations for Overseas
Contingency Operations......................................... 231
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 231
Purpose (sec. 1501)...................................... 231
Procurement (sec. 1502).................................. 231
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1503).. 231
Operation and maintenance (sec. 1504).................... 231
Military personnel (sec. 1505)........................... 231
Working capital funds (sec. 1506)........................ 231
Defense Health Program (sec. 1507)....................... 231
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
wide (sec. 1508)....................................... 231
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509).................... 232
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 232
Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)....... 232
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)................... 232
Subtitle C--Limitations and Other Matters.................... 232
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1531)............. 232
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1532) 233
Plan for transition in funding of United States Special
Operations Command from supplemental funding for
overseas contingency operations to recurring funding
under the future-years defense program (sec. 1533)..... 233
Extension of authority on Task Force for Business and
Stability Operations in Afghanistan (sec. 1534)........ 234
Assessments of training activities and intelligence
activities of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Organization (sec. 1535)........................ 234
Budget Items................................................. 234
AH-64 Apache Block IIIB new build........................ 234
Rapid equipping soldier support equipment................ 235
Solar power units........................................ 235
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund.......................... 235
Commanders' Emergency Response Program................... 235
Installation information infrastructure support for
United States Southern Command......................... 236
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............ 236
Items of Special Interest.................................... 237
Department of Defense procurement of Mi-17 helicopters
through Rosoboronexport................................ 237
Future size of the Afghan National Security Forces....... 238
Title XVI--Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
Commission..................................................... 241
Short title (sec. 1601).................................. 241
Purpose (sec. 1602)...................................... 241
Definitions (sec. 1603).................................. 241
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
Commission (sec. 1604)................................. 241
Commission hearings and meetings (sec. 1605)............. 242
Principles and procedure for commission recommendations
(sec. 1606)............................................ 242
Consideration of commission recommendations by the
President and Congress (sec. 1607)..................... 243
Pay for members of the commission (sec. 1608)............ 243
Executive Director (sec. 1609)........................... 243
Staff (sec. 1610)........................................ 243
Contracting authority (sec. 1611)........................ 244
Judicial review precluded (sec. 1612).................... 244
Termination (sec. 1613).................................. 244
Funding (sec. 1614)...................................... 244
Title XVII--National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force 245
National commission on the structure of the Air Force
(secs. 1701-1709)...................................... 245
Retention of core functions of the Electronic Systems
Center at Hanscom Air Force Base pending future
structure study (sec. 1710)............................ 247
Division B--Military Construction Authorizations................. 249
Summary and explanation of funding tables................ 249
Short title (sec. 2001).................................. 249
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law (sec. 2002)........................... 249
Title XXI--Army Military Construction............................ 251
Summary.................................................. 251
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2101)................................... 252
Family housing (sec. 2102)............................... 252
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)........ 252
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2010 project (sec. 2104).......................... 252
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2009
projects (sec. 2105)................................... 252
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010
projects (sec. 2106)................................... 252
Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year
2013 project (sec. 2107)............................... 253
Title XXII--Navy Military Construction........................... 255
Summary.................................................. 255
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2201)................................... 255
Family housing (sec. 2202)............................... 255
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 255
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........ 256
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2012 project (sec. 2205).......................... 256
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2009
projects (sec. 2206)................................... 256
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010
projects (sec. 2207)................................... 256
Realignment of Marines in the Asia-Pacific region (sec.
2208).................................................. 256
Items of Special Interest.................................... 256
Comptroller General of the United States assessment of
the costs of realignment of the Marines in the Asia-
Pacific region......................................... 256
U.S. force posture in the Asia-Pacific and realignment of
the U.S. Marines on Okinawa............................ 257
Title XXIII--Air Force Military Construction..................... 261
Summary.................................................. 261
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2301)................................... 261
Family housing (sec. 2302)............................... 261
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 262
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)... 262
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010
projects (sec. 2305)................................... 262
Title XXIV--Defense Agencies Military Construction............... 263
Summary.................................................. 263
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations.................... 263
Authorized defense agencies construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2401)....................... 263
Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)...... 264
Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec.
2403).................................................. 264
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2010
project (sec. 2404).................................... 264
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2012 project (sec. 2405).......................... 264
Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year
2013 project (sec. 2406)............................... 264
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations......... 264
Authorization of appropriations, chemical
demilitarization construction, defense-wide (sec. 2411) 264
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 1997 project (sec. 2412).......................... 264
Item of Special Interest..................................... 265
Excess overseas facilities for defense agencies.......... 265
Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program........................................................ 267
Summary.................................................. 267
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2501)................................... 267
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........ 267
Title XXVI--Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities.................. 269
Summary.................................................. 269
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of
Appropriations............................................. 269
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2601)....................... 269
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2602)................................... 269
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603). 269
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2604)....................... 269
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2605)....................... 269
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and
Reserve (sec. 2606).................................... 270
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 270
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2009
project (sec. 2611).................................... 270
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2010
projects (sec. 2612)................................... 270
Title XXVII--Base Realignment and Closure Activities............. 271
Summary and explanation of tables........................ 271
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and
closure activities funded through Department of Defense
base closure account 1990 (sec. 2701).................. 271
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and
closure activities funded through Department of Defense
base closure account 2005 (sec. 2702).................. 271
Technical amendments to section 2702 of fiscal year 2012
Act (sec. 2703)........................................ 271
Criteria for decisions involving certain base closure and
realignment activities (sec. 2704)..................... 271
Item of Special Interest..................................... 272
Government Accountability Office review of the systems
and processes that the Department uses to identify the
extent to which bases or facilities are excess to needs 272
Title XXVIII--Military Construction General Provisions........... 275
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes............................................ 275
Authorized cost and scope variations (sec. 2801)......... 275
Comptroller General report on in-kind payments (sec.
2802).................................................. 276
Extension of temporary, limited authority to use
operation and maintenance funds for construction
projects in certain areas outside the United States
(sec. 2803)............................................ 276
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 276
Authority to accept as consideration for leases of non-
excess property of military departments and defense
agencies real property interests and natural resource
management services related to agreements to limit
encroachment (sec. 2811)............................... 276
Clarification of parties with whom Department of Defense
may conduct exchanges of real property at military
installations (sec. 2812).............................. 276
Subtitle C--Energy Security.................................. 276
Guidance on financing for renewable energy projects (sec.
2821).................................................. 276
Continuation of limitation on use of funds for Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) gold or
platinum certification (sec. 2822)..................... 277
Prohibition on biofuel refinery construction (sec. 2823). 277
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances................................. 277
Land conveyance, local training area for Browning Army
Reserve Center, Utah (sec. 2831)....................... 277
Use of proceeds, land conveyance, Tyndall Air Force Base,
Florida (sec. 2832).................................... 277
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 277
Clarification of authority of Secretary to assist with
development of public infrastructure in connection with
the establishment or expansion of a military
installation (sec. 2841)............................... 277
Petersburg National Battlefield boundary modification
(sec. 2842)............................................ 277
Congressional notification with respect to oversight and
maintenance of base cemeteries following closure of
overseas military installations (sec. 2843)............ 277
Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
and Other Authorizations....................................... 278
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 278
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 278
Overview................................................. 278
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)..... 278
Weapons activities....................................... 279
Directed stockpile work.................................. 279
Campaigns................................................ 280
Readiness in the technical base.......................... 281
Secure transportation asset.............................. 283
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response............... 283
Site stewardship......................................... 283
Safeguards and security.................................. 283
National security applications........................... 283
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs................ 283
Nonproliferation and verification research and
development............................................ 283
Nonproliferation and international security.............. 284
International nuclear materials protection and
cooperation............................................ 284
Fissile materials disposition............................ 284
Global threat reduction initiative....................... 284
Naval reactors........................................... 285
Office of the Administrator.............................. 285
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................ 285
Savannah River Site...................................... 286
Waste Treatment Plant.................................... 286
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)..................... 286
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 286
Replacement project for Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
building, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico
(sec. 3111)............................................ 286
Submittal to Congress of selected acquisition reports and
independent cost estimates on nuclear weapon systems
undergoing life extension (sec. 3112).................. 289
Two-year extension of schedule for disposition of
weapons-usable plutonium at Savannah River Site, Aiken,
South Carolina (sec. 3113)............................. 289
Program on scientific engagement for nonproliferation
(sec. 3114)............................................ 289
Repeal of requirement for annual update of Department of
Energy defense nuclear facilities workforce
restructuring plan (sec. 3115)......................... 289
Quarterly reports to Congress on financial balances for
atomic energy defense activities (sec. 3116)........... 290
Transparency in contractor performance evaluations by the
National Nuclear Security Administration leading to
award fees (sec. 3117)................................. 290
Expansion of authority to establish certain scientific,
engineering, and technical positions (sec. 3118)....... 290
Modification and extension of authority on acceptance of
contributions for acceleration of removal or security
of fissile materials, radiological materials, and
related equipment at vulnerable sites worldwide (sec.
3119).................................................. 290
Cost containment for the Y-12 Uranium Processing
Facility, Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee (sec. 3120).................................. 291
Authority to restore certain formerly Restricted Data to
the Restricted Data category (Sec. 3121)............... 292
Subtitle C--Reports.......................................... 292
Report on actions required for transition of regulation
of non-nuclear activities of the National Nuclear
Security Administration to federal agencies (sec. 3131) 292
Report on consolidation of facilities of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3132)............ 292
Regional radiological security zones (sec. 3133)......... 293
Report on legacy uranium mines (sec. 3134)............... 293
Comptroller General of the United States review of
projects carried out by Office of Environmental
Management of the Department of Energy pursuant to the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (sec.
3135).................................................. 293
Items of Special Interest.................................... 293
General Accountability Office Study of National Nuclear
Security Administration Cost Estimating Practices...... 293
National Ignition Facility overhead structure............ 294
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities............... 294
Acquisition corps........................................ 294
Plan for use of Office of Science facilities............. 294
Independence of the National Nuclear Security
Administration......................................... 295
Adherence to section 3114 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011......... 295
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............. 297
Authorization (sec. 3201)................................ 297
Title XXXV--Maritime Administration.............................. 299
Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)...................... 299
Division D--Funding Tables....................................... 301
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)... 301
Title XLI--Procurement........................................... 303
Procurement (sec. 4101).................................. 304
Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec.
4102).................................................. 350
Title XLII--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.......... 363
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201).. 364
Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas
contingency operations (sec. 4202)..................... 399
Title XLIII--Operation and Maintenance........................... 402
Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301).................... 403
Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency
operations (sec. 4302)................................. 418
Title XLIV--Military Personnel................................... 427
Military personnel (sec. 4401)........................... 428
Military personnel for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4402)............................................ 429
Title XLV--Other Authorizations.................................. 431
Other authorizations (sec. 4501)......................... 432
Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4502)............................................ 434
Title XLVI--Military Construction................................ 437
Military construction (sec. 4601)........................ 438
Title XLVII--Department of Energy National Security Programs..... 461
Department of Energy national security authorizations
(sec. 4701)............................................ 462
Legislative Requirements......................................... 473
Departmental Recommendations............................. 473
Committee Action......................................... 473
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................ 474
Regulatory Impact........................................ 474
Changes in Existing Law.................................. 475
Additional Views................................................. 476
Additional Views of Mr. Begich........................... 476
Additional Views of Mr. McCain........................... 478
Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe........................... 482
Additional Views of Mr. Chambliss........................ 485
Additional Views of Ms. Ayotte........................... 486
Calendar No. 419
112th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 112-173
======================================================================
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 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
_______
June 4, 2012.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Levin, from the Committee on Armed Services,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 3254]
The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
original bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year
2013 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, 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 2013;
(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each
military active duty component of the Armed Forces for
fiscal year 2013;
(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the
Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2013;
(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 2013; and
(7) authorize appropriations for national security
programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2013.
Committee overview
The United States Armed Forces have been involved in armed
conflict for more than 10 years. U.S. forces are drawing down
in Afghanistan and are no longer deployed in Iraq. However,
real threats to our national security remain and our forces are
deployed throughout the globe. Whether engaged in combat in
Afghanistan, tracking down Al Qaeda and associated forces in
the Arabian Peninsula, keeping a watchful eye on Iran or North
Korea, delivering humanitarian assistance to victims of natural
disasters at home or abroad, or training foreign national
forces to combat terrorism in their own countries, the men and
women of our armed forces, both active and reserve, are serving
honorably and courageously to promote and defend our Nation's
interests. They do so often at great personal risk and
significant sacrifice to themselves and their families.
The Administration has completed a comprehensive strategic
review in the light of current and anticipated threats, and has
put in place a new strategic guidance. The Department of
Defense's ability to implement that strategic guidance will be
in question should the Administration and Congress fail to
reach agreement on a plan to avoid automatic defense spending
reductions scheduled to take effect in January 2013.
In Afghanistan, the surge force will be withdrawn by the
end of this summer, as Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF)
embark on the third tranche of the transition that will result
in the ANSF having primary responsibility for three-fourths of
the Afghan people. The transition to Afghan security lead
throughout Afghanistan is on track to be completed by the end
of 2014.
To date in this Second Session of the 112th Congress, the
Committee on Armed Services has conducted 32 hearings and
formal briefings on the President's budget request for fiscal
year 2013, the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, and related
defense matters.
In order to provide a framework for the consideration of
these matters, the committee identified 10 guidelines to guide
its work on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013. These guidelines are:
1. Improve 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. Provide our service men and women with the resources,
training, technology, equipment (especially force protection)
and authorities they need to succeed in combat,
counterinsurgency, and stability operations.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter
nontraditional threats, focusing on terrorism, cyber warfare,
and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their
means of delivery.
6. Enhance the capability of the security forces of allied
and friendly nations to defeat al Qaeda, its affiliates, and
other violent extremist organizations.
7. Seek to 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.
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
affordable 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.
Scoring of budgetary effects (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).
Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget implication
The administration's budget request for national defense
discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services for fiscal year 2013 was $631.6
billion. Of this amount, $525.3 billion was requested for base
Department of Defense programs, $88.5 billion was requested for
overseas contingency operations, and $17.8 billion was
requested for national security programs in the Department of
Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
The bill authorizes $631.4 billion in fiscal year 2013,
including $525.8 billion for base Department of Defense
programs, $88.2 billion for overseas contingency operations,
and $17.3 billion for national security programs in the
Department of Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board.
The administration's fiscal year 2013 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 $646.7 billion.
The following two tables summarize the direct
authorizations and the equivalent budget authority levels for
fiscal year 2013 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 do not require an
annual authorization.
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
(In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Senate Senate
Request Change Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE
Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations
Division A: Base Budget (Titles I, II, III, IV, XIV, XVI)
Title I: PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army..... 5,853,729 -44,000 5,809,729
Missile Procurement, Army...... 1,302,689 0 1,302,689
Weapons & Tracked Combat 1,501,706 188,817 1,690,523
Vehicles, Army................
Procurement of Ammunition, Army 1,739,706 -166,438 1,573,268
Other Procurement, Army........ 6,326,245 -19,212 6,307,033
Joint Improvised Explosive 227,414 -227,414 0
Device Defeat Fund............
Aircraft Procurement, Navy..... 17,129,296 60,000 17,189,296
Weapons Procurement, Navy...... 3,117,578 7,700 3,125,278
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy 759,539 -100,800 658,739
& Marine Corps................
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy 13,579,845 777,679 14,357,524
Other Procurement, Navy........ 6,169,378 0 6,169,378
Procurement, Marine Corps...... 1,622,955 -275,200 1,347,755
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 11,002,999 -908,748 10,094,251
Missile Procurement, Air Force. 5,491,846 0 5,491,846
Procurement of Ammunition, Air 599,194 0 599,194
Force.........................
Other Procurement, Air Force... 16,720,848 0 16,720,848
Procurement, Defense-Wide...... 4,187,935 234,400 4,422,335
National Guard and Reserve 0 0 0
Equipment.....................
Joint Urgent Operational Needs 99,477 0 99,477
Fund..........................
Subtotal, PROCUREMENT.......... 97,432,379 -473,216 96,959,163
Title II: RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION
RDT&E, Army.................... 8,929,415 -425,661 8,503,754
RDT&E, Navy.................... 16,882,877 -8,832 16,874,045
RDT&E, Air Force............... 25,428,046 -153,156 25,274,890
RDT&E, Defense-Wide............ 17,982,161 462,100 18,444,261
Operational Test & Evaluation, 185,268 4,000 189,268
Defense.......................
Subtotal, RESEARCH, 69,407,767 -121,549 69,286,218
DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION
Title III: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation & Maintenance, Army.. 36,608,592 -145,300 36,463,292
Operation & Maintenance, Navy.. 41,606,943 -23,000 41,583,943
Operation & Maintenance, Marine 5,983,163 0 5,983,163
Corps.........................
Operation & Maintenance, Air 35,435,360 -32,000 35,403,360
Force.........................
Operation & Maintenance, 31,993,013 39,500 32,032,513
Defense-Wide..................
Operation & Maintenance, Army 3,162,008 0 3,162,008
Reserve.......................
Operation & Maintenance, Navy 1,246,982 0 1,246,982
Reserve.......................
Operation & Maintenance, Marine 272,285 0 272,285
Corps Reserve.................
Operation & Maintenance, Air 3,166,482 0 3,166,482
Force Reserve.................
Operation & Maintenance, Army 7,108,612 0 7,108,612
National Guard................
Operation & Maintenance, Air 6,015,455 0 6,015,455
National Guard................
Miscellaneous Appropriations... 2,340,038 0 2,340,038
Subtotal, OPERATION AND 174,938,933 -160,800 174,778,133
MAINTENANCE...................
Title IV: MILITARY PERSONNEL... 135,111,799 6,000 135,117,799
Title XIV: OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
Working Capital Fund, Army..... 60,037 0 60,037
Working Capital Fund, Air Force 45,452 0 45,452
Working Capital Fund, Defense- 39,135 0 39,135
Wide..........................
Working Capital Fund, DECA..... 1,371,560 0 1,371,560
National Defense Sealift Fund.. 608,136 0 608,136
Defense Health Program......... 32,528,718 452,000 32,980,718
Chemical Agents & Munitions 1,301,786 0 1,301,786
Destruction, Defense..........
Drug Interdiction & Counter- 999,363 0 999,363
Drug Activities, Defense......
Office of the Inspector General 273,821 59,100 332,921
Subtotal, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. 37,228,008 511,100 37,739,108
Title XVII: COMMISSION ON THE 0 1,400,000 1,400,000
STRUCTURE OF THE AIR FORCE....
Subtotal, Division A, Base 514,118,886 1,161,535 515,280,421
Budget........................
Division A: Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Budget (Title XV)
Title XV--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
PROCUREMENT, OCO
Aircraft Procurement, Army..... 486,200 -71,000 415,200
Missile Procurement, Army...... 49,653 0 49,653
Weapons & Tracked Combat 15,422 0 15,422
Vehicles, Army................
Procurement of Ammunition, Army 357,493 0 357,493
Other Procurement, Army........ 2,015,907 33,000 2,048,907
Joint Improvised Explosive 1,675,400 27,414 1,702,814
Device Defeat Fund............
Aircraft Procurement, Navy..... 164,582 0 164,582
Weapons Procurement, Navy...... 23,500 0 23,500
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy 285,747 0 285,747
& Marine Corps................
Other Procurement, Navy........ 98,882 0 98,882
Procurement, Marine Corps...... 943,683 0 943,683
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 305,600 0 305,600
Missile Procurement, Air Force. 34,350 0 34,350
Procurement of Ammunition, Air 116,203 0 116,203
Force.........................
Other Procurement, Air Force... 2,818,270 0 2,818,270
Procurement, Defense-Wide...... 196,349 0 196,349
Joint Urgent Operational Needs 100,000 0 100,000
Fund..........................
Subtotal, PROCUREMENT, OCO..... 9,687,241 -10,586 9,676,655
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVALUATION, OCO
RDT&E, Army.................... 19,860 0 19,860
RDT&E, Navy.................... 60,119 0 60,119
RDT&E, Air Force............... 53,150 0 53,150
RDT&E, Defense-Wide............ 112,387 0 112,387
Subtotal, RDT&E, OCO........... 245,516 0 245,516
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, OCO
Operation & Maintenance, Army.. 28,591,441 -240,000 28,351,441
Operation & Maintenance, Navy.. 5,880,395 0 5,880,395
Operation & Maintenance, Marine 4,066,340 0 4,066,340
Corps.........................
Operation & Maintenance, Air 9,241,613 0 9,241,613
Force.........................
Operation & Maintenance, 7,824,579 0 7,824,579
Defense-Wide..................
Operation & Maintenance, Army 154,537 0 154,537
Reserve.......................
Operation & Maintenance, Navy 55,924 0 55,924
Reserve.......................
Operation & Maintenance, Marine 25,477 0 25,477
Corps Reserve.................
Operation & Maintenance, Air 120,618 0 120,618
Force Reserve.................
Operation & Maintenance, Army 382,448 0 382,448
National Guard................
Operation & Maintenance, Air 19,975 0 19,975
National Guard................
Afghanistan Security Forces 5,749,167 0 5,749,167
Fund..........................
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund 400,000 -50,000 350,000
Subtotal, OPERATION AND 62,512,514 -290,000 62,222,514
MAINTENANCE, OCO..............
MILITARY PERSONNEL, OCO........ 14,060,094 0 14,060,094
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS, OCO
Working Capital Fund, Army..... 42,600 0 42,600
Working Capital Fund, Air Force 240,400 0 240,400
Working Capital Fund, Defense- 220,364 0 220,364
Wide..........................
Defense Health Program......... 993,898 0 993,898
Drug Interdiction & Counter- 469,025 0 469,025
Drug Activities, Defense......
Office of the Inspector General 10,766 0 10,766
Subtotal, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS, 1,977,053 0 1,977,053
OCO...........................
Subtotal, Division A, OCO 88,482,418 -300,586 88,181,832
Budget........................
Total, Division A.............. 602,601,304 860,949 603,462,253
Division B: Military Construction Authorizations
Division B: Base Budget (Titles XXI--XXVII)
Titles XXI--XXVI: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Military Construction, Army.... 1,923,323 -325,000 1,598,323
Military Construction, Navy and 1,701,985 -53,757 1,648,228
Marine Corps..................
Military Construction, Air 388,200 -65,657 322,543
Force.........................
Military Construction, Defense- 3,654,623 -219,500 3,435,123
Wide..........................
NATO Security Investment 254,163 0 254,163
Program.......................
Military Construction, Army 613,799 0 613,799
National Guard................
Military Construction, Air 42,386 0 42,386
National Guard................
Military Construction, Army 305,846 0 305,846
Reserve.......................
Military Construction, Navy 49,532 0 49,532
Reserve.......................
Military Construction, Air 10,979 0 10,979
Force Reserve.................
Chemical Demilitarization 151,000 0 151,000
Construction..................
Subtotal, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 9,095,836 -663,914 8,431,922
Titles XXI--XXVI: FAMILY HOUSING
Family Housing Construction, 4,641 0 4,641
Army..........................
Family Housing O&M, Army....... 530,051 0 530,051
Family Housing Construction, 102,182 0 102,182
Navy and Marine Corps.........
Family Housing O&M, Navy and 378,230 0 378,230
Marine Corps..................
Family Housing Construction, 83,824 0 83,824
Air Force.....................
Family Housing O&M, Air Force.. 497,829 0 497,829
Family Housing O&M, Defense- 52,238 0 52,238
Wide..........................
Family Housing Improvement Fund 1,786 0 1,786
Subtotal, FAMILY HOUSING....... 1,650,781 0 1,650,781
Title XXVII: BRAC
Defense Base Closure Account 349,396 0 349,396
1990..........................
Defense Base Closure Account 126,697 0 126,697
2005..........................
Subtotal, BRAC................. 476,093 0 476,093
Total, Division B.............. 11,222,710 -663,914 10,558,796
SUBTOTAL, BASE BUDGET, 525,341,596 497,621 525,839,217
DIVISIONS A & B...............
SUBTOTAL, OCO BUDGET, DIVISION 88,482,418 -300,586 88,181,832
A.............................
TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 613,824,014 197,035 614,021,049
(051).........................
Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and
Other Authorizations
Division C: (Titles XXXI and XXXII)
Department of Energy Authorization (Title XXXI)
Electricity Delivery and Energy 6,000 -6,000 0
Reliability...................
Title XXXI: NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Weapons Activities............. 7,577,341 25,000 7,602,341
Defense Nuclear 2,458,631 0 2,458,631
Nonproliferation..............
Naval Reactors................. 1,088,635 37,986 1,126,621
Office of the Administrator.... 411,279 -25,000 386,279
Subtotal, NATIONAL NUCLEAR 11,535,886 37,986 11,573,872
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.......
Title XXXI: ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Cleanup.. 5,472,001 -463,000 5,009,001
Other Defense Activities....... 735,702 0 735,702
Subtotal, ENVIRONMENTAL AND 6,207,703 -463,000 5,744,703
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES......
TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.... 17,749,589 -431,014 17,318,575
Title XXXII: DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Defense Nuclear Facilities 29,415 0 29,415
Safety Board..................
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR 29,415 0 29,415
FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.......
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 17,779,004 -431,014 17,347,990
PROGRAMS (053)................
GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE 631,603,018 -233,979 631,369,039
(050).........................
MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
Title XIV--Armed Forces 67,590 0 67,590
Retirement Home (Function 600)
MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS)
Title X--General Transfer [5,000,000] 0 [5,000,000]
Authority (non-add)...........
Title XV--Special Transfer [4,000,000] 0 [4,000,000]
Authority (non-add)...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
(In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Senate Senate
Request Change Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the
Armed Services Committee
SUBTOTAL, BASE BUDGET, 525,341,596 497,621 525,839,217
DIVISIONS A & B...............
SUBTOTAL, OCO BUDGET, DIVISION 88,482,418 -300,586 88,181,832
A.............................
TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 613,824,014 197,035 614,021,049
(051).........................
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 17,779,004 -431,014 17,347,990
PROGRAMS (053)................
GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE 631,603,018 -233,979 631,369,039
(050).........................
Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are Not In the
Jurisdiction of the
Armed Services Committee or Do Not Require Additional Authorization
Defense Production Act 89,189 89,189
Purchases.....................
Indefinite Account: National 25 25
Science Center, Army..........
Indefinte Account: Disposal Of 7,855 7,855
DOD Real Property.............
Indefinite Account: Lease Of 12,029 12,029
DOD Real Property.............
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 109,098 109,098
051...........................
Formerly Utilized Sites 104,000 104,000
Remedial Action Program.......
Nuclear Energy................. 93,000 93,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 197,000 197,000
053...........................
Other Discretionary Programs... 7,168,000 7,168,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 7,168,000 7,168,000
054...........................
Total Defense Discretionary 7,474,098 7,474,098
Adjustments (050).............
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary
Department of Defense--Military 613,933,112 197,035 614,130,147
(051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense 17,976,004 -431,014 17,544,990
Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities 7,168,000 7,168,000
(054).........................
Total BA Implication, National 639,077,116 -233,979 638,843,137
Defense Discretionary.........
National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates)
Concurrent receipt accrual 6,849,000 6,849,000
payments to the Military
Retirement Fund...............
Revolving, trust and other DOD 1,100,000 1,100,000
Mandatory.....................
Offsetting receipts............ -1,794,000 -1,794,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 6,155,000 6,155,000
051...........................
Energy employees occupational 1,165,000 1,165,000
illness compensation programs
and other.....................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 1,165,000 1,165,000
053...........................
Radiation exposure compensation 57,000 57,000
trust fund....................
Payment to CIA retirement fund 514,000 514,000
and other.....................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 571,000 571,000
054...........................
Total National Defense 7,891,000 7,891,000
Mandatory (050)...............
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and
Mandatory
Department of Defense--Military 620,088,112 197,035 620,285,147
(051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense 19,141,004 -431,014 18,709,990
Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities 7,739,000 7,739,000
(054).........................
Total BA Implication, National 646,968,116 -233,979 646,734,137
Defense Discretionary and
Mandatory.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 B--Army Programs
Multiyear procurement authority for Army CH-47F helicopters (sec. 111)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to enter a multiyear procurement
contract in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United
States Code, for up to 5 years for Army CH-47F Chinook
helicopters.
The committee has taken the position that committing the
Department of Defense, Congress, and the taxpayers to multiyear
contracts is justified only when the multiyear contract results
in substantial savings that would not be achieved by annual
contracts and meets other statutory criteria. In this case, the
Army is projecting savings for this next multiyear contract, if
authorized, to be just over 10 percent. The committee
recommends supporting the request for multiyear contract
authority, but directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the
congressional defense committees with an annual briefing during
the execution of this contract on progress achieved in meeting
or exceeding the projected savings used to justify granting
this authority. This briefing shall accompany the Army's annual
budget request.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Refueling and complex overhaul of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln (sec. 121)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to provide funding for the refueling
and complex overhaul of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln
incrementally over a 2-year period.
Ford-class-aircraft-carriers (sec. 122)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to buy Ford-class aircraft carriers
designated CVN-79 and CVN-80 over a 6-year period, rather than
over a 5-year period as currently allowed.
Limitation on availability of amounts for second Ford-class aircraft
carrier (sec. 123)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit
fiscal year 2013 obligations for the Ford-class aircraft
carrier program to 50 percent of the amount in the budget,
pending submission of a report by the Secretary of the Navy to
the congressional defense committees setting forth a
description of the program management and cost control measures
that will be employed in constructing the second Ford-class
aircraft carrier.
The Secretary would be required, at a minimum, to describe
a plan to:
(1) maximize planned work in shops and early stages
of construction;
(2) sequence construction of structural units to
maximize the effects of lessons learned;
(3) incorporate design changes to improve
producibility for the Ford-class aircraft carriers;
(4) increase the size of erection units to eliminate
disruptive unit breaks and improve unit alignment and
fairness;
(5) increase outfitting levels for assembled units
before erection in the dry-dock;
(6) increase overall ship completion levels at each
key construction event;
(7) improve facilities in a manner that will lead to
improved productivity; and
(8) ensure the shipbuilder initiates plans that will
improve productivity through capital improvements that
would provide targeted return on investment,
including--
(a) increasing the amount of temporary and
permanent covered work areas;
(b) adding ramps and service towers for
improved access to work sites and the dry-dock;
and
(c) increasing lift capacity to enable
construction of larger, more fully outfitted
superlifts.
The committee also expects the Secretary of the Navy to re-
certify the statutory cost cap for the CVN-79 and that the Navy
and the contractor will build this ship within the amount
permitted by law.
Multiyear procurement authority for Virginia-class submarine program
(sec. 124)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to buy Virginia-class submarines
under a multiyear procurement contract. This would be the third
multiyear contract for the Virginia-class program. The Navy
estimates that the previous two multiyear procurement contracts
(fiscal years 2003-2008 and fiscal years 2009-2013) achieved
savings of greater than 10 percent as compared to annual
procurements. For the third contract (for fiscal years 2014-
2018), the Navy is estimating that the expected savings will be
14 percent for the multiyear approach as compared to annual
procurement contracts.
The Navy is expecting that the number of attack submarines
will fall short of meeting the requirement in each of the 13
years (2022-2034), starting in the next decade, when the
inventory of attack submarines will be below the requirement of
48 boats. The committee appreciates that fiscal year 2014 is
the only year for the foreseeable future where we might afford
to buy an additional attack submarine to mitigate that
shortfall. In other years, we are already buying two boats or
more, or a single attack submarine and a ballistic missile
submarine. The next opportunity where the Navy intends to buy
only one boat is 2036, far too late to have any effect on the
projected requirements shortfall.
Therefore, the provision would also permit the Navy to use
incremental funding within the second and third multiyear for
the explicit purpose of buying an extra boat in 2014. During
budget deliberations surrounding the fiscal year 2013 budget,
the Navy had to delete one of the two boats planned for fiscal
year 2014 due to top line pressures on the budget, not due to
any schedule or cost performance issues. The Navy believes
that, if the Navy were allowed to incrementally fund the boats
within these years, the Navy could buy an additional and
restore the rate of two per year in 2014 without requiring
additional resources. This would have two-fold benefit of
stabilizing production at a more affordable rate, and reducing
the planned shortfall of attack submarines in each of the 13
years when the Navy attack submarine inventory falls short of
requirements, and would be consistent with congressional
authorization in section 2308 of title 10, United States Code,
for the Secretary to buy-to-budget.
The committee appreciates that multiyear procurement
authority already represents a departure from the full funding
policy. In addition to the normal advance procurement (which is
a lesser departure from full funding in itself), multiyear
procurement authority allows the Department to contract for
parts and construction effort on procurement items for which
full funding has not been provided. The committee believes
that, facing the choice between living with a shortfall in
requirements and with a very stable production program,
departing from the full funding policy for this very important
program is an appropriate step at this time.
The committee also recommends an increase of $777.7 million
in advance procurement to provide a down payment on the second
boat in fiscal year 2014.
Multiyear procurement authority for Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and
associated systems (sec. 125)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to buy up to 10 Arleigh Burke-class
Flight IIA destroyers under a multiyear procurement contract.
This would be the third multiyear contract for the Arleigh
Burke-class program. The Navy estimates that the previous two
multiyear procurement contracts (fiscal years 1998-2001 and
fiscal years 2002-2005) achieved savings of greater than $1.0
billion, as compared to annual procurements. For the third
contract (for fiscal years 2013-2017), the Navy is estimating
that the expected savings will be 8.7 percent, or in excess of
$1.5 billion, for the multiyear approach as compared to annual
procurement contracts.
While the Navy's shipbuilding plan currently provides for
only nine Arleigh Burke-class destroyers during the period of
the planned multiyear contract, the committee understands from
the Navy that competition between the two shipyards in fiscal
year 2011 and 2012 has led to significant savings in the
program compared to the original budget request. The Navy
program office believes that competition for the multiyear
contract starting in fiscal year 2013 could also yield
additional savings, and that the sum total of those savings
might be sufficient to purchase an additional destroyer in
fiscal year 2014. The committee is recommending approval of a
multiyear authority for up to 10 ships with the prospect that
the Navy may be able to combine the savings from fiscal years
2011, 2012, and 2013 and buy an additional destroyer, which is
consistent with congressional authorization in section 2308 of
title 10, United States Code, for the Secretary to buy-to-
budget.
The committee believes that continued production of Arleigh
Burke-class destroyers is critical to provide required forces
for sea-based ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities. The
Navy envisions that, if research and development activities
yield an improved radar suite and combat systems capability,
they would like to install those systems on the destroyers in
fiscal years 2016 and 2017, at which time the designation for
those destroyers would be Flight III. Should the Navy decide to
move forward with the integration of an engineering change
proposal (ECP) to incorporate a new BMD capable radar and
associated support systems during execution of this multiyear
procurement, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit a report to
the congressional defense committees, no later than with the
budget request for the year of contract award of such an ECP.
The report will contain a description of the final scope of
this ECP, as well as the level of maturity of the new
technology to be incorporated on the ships of implementation
and rationale as to why the maturity of the technology and the
capability provided justify execution of the change in
requirements under that ECP during the execution of a multiyear
procurement contract.
Authority for relocation of certain Aegis weapon system assets between
and within the DDG-51 class destroyer and Aegis Ashore Programs
in order to meet mission requirements (sec. 126)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Defense Department to transfer AEGIS weapon systems (AWS)
equipment between ships in the DDG-51 class destroyer program,
or between the DDG-51 class destroyer program and Missile
Defense Agency's (MDA) AEGIS Ashore Program, part of the
European Phased, Adaptive Approach to missile defense. The
Department anticipates that under the current budgets, MDA will
be unable to obtain AWS equipment with ballistic missile
defense (BMD) capability to support its first planned Aegis
Ashore deployment in December 2015. If MDA is going to maintain
that schedule, MDA would have to take delivery of AWS equipment
with BMD capability in February 2013, to complete appropriate
system integration and testing prior to shipment to the
deployment site. MDA is requesting research, development, test,
and evaluation funds in the fiscal years 2012 and 2013 budgets
for the AWS equipment for the first deployment, but AWS
equipment production lead times will not support delivery of an
AWS with BMD capability in 2013 using those MDA funds alone.
This provision would allow the Department to support the first
MDA deployment by diverting AWS equipment from the DDG-51
program to support the MDA, and, using the MDA contract dollars
to replace that diverted AWS equipment, still support the
planned delivery dates of the AEGIS destroyers.
Designation of mission modules of the littoral combat ship as a major
defense acquisition program (sec. 127)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to designate the effort to develop and
produce all variants of the mission modules in support of the
Littoral Combat Ship program as a major defense acquisition
program under section 2430 of title 10, United States Code.
The committee seeks greater visibility into the procurement
costs associated with mission modules supporting the Littoral
Combat Ship program. The committee believes that, to ensure
that it has the visibility required to fully understand and
closely track the costs of developing and producing each
variant of the mission module, the overall effort should be
designated as a major defense acquisition program (MDAP). In so
doing, the committee expects to receive all of the cost,
schedule, and performance information on this effort that is
typically produced in connection with typical MDAPs, including,
selected acquisition reports, unit cost reports and program
baselines. The committee hopes that this initiative will help
discipline how the Department of the Navy has structured its
plan to develop and produce each variant of the mission modules
and improve Congress' ability to subject the overall effort to
strong oversight.
As part of this initiative, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to provide the congressional defense
committees, no later than 30 days after enactment of this Act,
with the Department of the Navy's estimates as to the cost of
completing the development and production of each mission
module, operative as of May 31, 2012.
The committee understands that in the fourth quarter of
2012, the Department of the Navy expects to approve the mission
modules for entry into Milestone B, that is, the engineering
and manufacturing development phase of the Defense Acquisition
Management System. At that time, the committee expects that the
Milestone Decision Authority will certify that, as required
under section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, reasonable
cost and schedule estimates have been developed to execute,
with the concurrence of the Director of the Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation, the product development and production plan
under the program. To ensure that the Department of the Navy's
plans to develop and produce these mission modules is realistic
and affordable, the committee looks forward to receiving these
cost and schedule estimates, will exercise close oversight of
this certification, and expects that the Department will not
waive the certification.
Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy
and Marine Corps funds (sec. 128)
The committee recommends a provision that, to the extent
provided in appropriations acts, the Secretary of the Navy may
transfer $88.3 million of fiscal year 2012 funds made available
for ammunition procurement for the Marine Corps to other higher
priority programs. These funds are excess to Marine Corps needs
for the procurement of small arms, 60mm and 81mm mortar rounds,
grenades, artillery rounds, demolition munitions, and fuses.
According to the Government Accountability Office, funds for
procurement of these items are excess to need as a result of a
change in the methodology for calculating consumption
requirements for training, war reserves, and operations.
Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Procurement, Marine Corps funds
for procurement of weapons and combat vehicles (sec. 129)
The committee recommends a provision that, to the extent
provided in appropriations acts, the Secretary of the Navy may
transfer $135.2 million of fiscal year 2012 funds made
available for procurement of weapons and combat vehicles for
the Marine Corps to other higher priority programs. These funds
are excess to Marine Corps needs for the procurement of the
Light Armored Vehicle-25 (LAV-25) due to a reduction in the
number of such vehicles that the Marine Corps intends to buy
and sustain in the inventory.
For the same reason, the committee recommends a reduction
of $140.0 million to the budget request for LAV-25 procurement
for fiscal year 2013.
Sense of Congress on Marine Corps amphibious lift and presence
requirements (sec. 130)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that:
(1) the Department of Defense should carefully
evaluate the maritime force structure necessary to
execute demand for forces by the commanders of the
combatant commands;
(2) the Department of the Navy carefully evaluate
amphibious lift capabilities to meet current and
projected requirements;
(3) the Department of the Navy should consider
prioritization of investment in and procurement of the
next-generation of amphibious assault ships, as a
component of the balanced battle force;
(4) the next-generation amphibious assault ships
should maintain survivability protection;
(5) operation and maintenance requirements analysis,
as well as the potential to leverage a common hull form
design, should be considered to reduce total ownership
cost and acquisition cost; and
(6) maintaining a robust amphibious ship building
industrial base is vital for the future of the national
security of the United States.
Sense of Senate on Department of Navy fiscal year 2014 budget request
for tactical aviation aircraft (sec. 131)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that, if the budget request of the
Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2014 for F-18 aircraft
includes a request for funds for more than 13 new F-18
aircraft, the budget request of the Department of the Navy for
fiscal year 2014 for F-35 aircraft should include a request for
funds for not fewer than 6 F-35B aircraft and 4 F-35C aircraft,
presuming that development, testing, and production of the F-35
aircraft are proceeding according to current plans.
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
Reduction in number of aircraft required to be maintained in strategic
airlift aircraft inventory (sec. 141)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 8062(g)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to reduce
the number of strategic airlift aircraft the Air Force must
maintain from 301 aircraft to 275 aircraft. It would also
correspondingly change the certification requirement in section
137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010 (Public Law 111-84). Finally, it would require that the
Secretary of the Air Force maintain any C-5A aircraft retired
after September 30, 2012, in inviolate storage with only the
Secretary of Defense permitted to authorize the Air Force to
take any spare parts from those aircraft.
Treatment of certain programs for the F-22A Raptor aircraft as major
defense acquisition program (sec. 142)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the Air Force report F-22A modernization and upgrade
programs under the system of the Selected Acquisition Reports
(SAR). The committee was informed that, with new production of
the F-22A coming to an end, the Air Force intends to stop
reporting within the SAR system on the F-22A, despite the fact
that there could be as much as $11.7 billion remaining to be
spent on defined F-22A upgrade programs. The committee believes
the category ``major defense acquisition programs'' is not
limited only to programs that are acquiring brand new weapon
systems, and that any F-22A program for modifications or
upgrades, if it would otherwise meet the statutory definition
of a major defense acquisition program, should be treated that
way.
The committee believes there is ample justification for
continuing to track F-22A modernization past the end of new
production.
(1) In April 2012, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) issued a report on the program to modernize the F-22A
Raptor fleet, estimated to cost almost $10.0 billion through
2023. In this report, GAO noted that similar efforts to
modernize Air Force and Navy tactical fighters in the past
involved building upgrades into newly produced jets, resulting
in entirely new, fresh airplanes.
(2) In another report, issued in May 2012, GAO found that
the total projected cost to modernize the F-22A Raptor fighter
jet more than doubled from $5.4 billion to $11.7 billion since
the program started and the schedule for delivering full
capabilities slipped 7 years from 2010 to 2017.
(3) Upgrades to the F-22A are much more complicated than
those made to other legacy fighters, giving rise to likelihood
of schedule slips and cost growth.
(4) With these factors in mind, GAO believes that many of
the Air Force's F-22A Raptors may not get their long-promised
capability upgrades until they will have, in some cases,
expended as much as 20 percent of their service lives. This
could limit the amount of utility the Air Force will be able to
extract from this enormously expensive modernization program.
F-22A Raptor Sustainment
In addition to the near-term modernization, sustainment
over the life cycle of a weapon system represents a significant
expenditure of resources. On average, about two-thirds of the
total life cycle cost of a major defense system lies in post-
production--in its operation and sustainment over its useful
life. If that rule were to hold true, with a charge of roughly
$79.0 billion to buy the F-22A, the Air Force could be facing a
demand for roughly $160.0 billion in F-22A sustainment costs.
Moreover, under its ``structures retrofit program'', over the
next few years the Air Force will need more than $100.0 million
to retrofit the F-22A fleet just to ensure these aircraft can
fly for the full 8,000 hours for which they were designed. Over
just the last 2 years, the Air Force issued sole-source
contracts for sustainment of the F-22A fleet to the prime
contractor totaling almost $1.4 billion.
The Air Force recently completed an F-22A sustainment
strategy review that concluded that a joint contractor/
government approach could save more than $1.0 billion in
sustainment costs over the life of the aircraft. The committee
believes that the Air Force must transition its sustainment
strategy to adopt the least expensive sustainment strategy now,
while continuing to be aggressive in exploring opportunities to
compete F-22A sustainment work.
F-22A Raptor Pilot Air-Supply Problems
The Air Force has been having problems with the oxygen-
supply for its F-22A Raptor pilots. The committee is aware of,
and has been closely monitoring, these problems. The Air Force
has documented 11 reported incidents of hypoxia-like symptoms
in 10,000 sorties (about 0.1 percent) since late 2011, with 6
of these incidents having occurred as recently as February and
March 2012. Since reports of pilots experiencing hypoxia-like
symptoms in flight first arose, the Secretary of the Air Force,
among other actions, directed the Air Force Scientific Advisory
Board (SAB) to conduct a quick-look study; gather and evaluate
information; and recommend any corrective actions on aircraft
using on-board oxygen generation systems. Unfortunately, to
date, the Air Force has not been able to identify conclusively
a root cause for the problem. But, the committee has been
assured that the Air Force has put in place measures intended
to ensure that these aircraft are safe to fly, including new
commercial oxygen status sensors and emergency oxygen handles
in the aircraft. For this reason, after having grounded the
fleet after initial reports of hypoxia-related symptoms in its
pilots late last year, the Air Force returned the F-22A to
flying under its full mission envelope and, in fact, deployed
it to Southwest Asia and the United Arab Emirates in late
April. Despite that a small number of pilots have asked not to
fly the F-22A or to be reassigned because of this issue, Air
Force leadership has conveyed to the committee that, while the
Air Force continues to investigate this problem, these aircraft
are safe to fly today.
Notably, the Navy had similar problems with F-18s; there
were 64 incidents from 2002 to 2009, resulting in 2 deaths.
Ultimately, however, the Navy overcame these problems. The
committee remains hopeful that the Air Force will be similarly
successful. In the meantime, the committee will continue to
exercise close oversight of this problem and how the Air Force
addresses it. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to explain, no later than 90 days after enactment of this
Act, how the Air Force has implemented or will implement each
of the recommendations provided by the SAB. If the Secretary
disagrees with any of these recommendations, he should explain
why and describe what other corrective actions he may be taking
to respond to the concern underlying that recommendation.
Finally, as the Air Force continues to investigate this
matter, the committee will view as unacceptable any act of
retaliation against any F-22A Raptor pilot who raises concerns
about the safety of this aircraft or declines to fly it on that
basis.
Avionics systems for C-130 aircraft (sec. 143)
The committee recommends a provision that would delay Air
Force implementation of the cancellation or modification of the
Avionics Modernization Program for the C-130 aircraft until 30
days after the receipt of a report submitted to the
congressional defense committees.
Procurement of space-based infrared system satellites (sec. 144)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to acquire two Space Based
Infrared System Satellites (SBIRS) under a fixed price
contract. The provision would further cap the total cost of the
satellites at $3.9 billion but provide limited exceptions to
this cap. The provision would also permit the Secretary to
incrementally fund the contract over a 6 year period.
Thirty days after entering into the contract, the provision
would direct the Secretary to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees setting forth the specifics of
the contract, which would include the cost savings and total
cost of the contract. A second report would be due 90 days
after the date of the contract describing the amount of the
cost savings achieved and how the Secretary plans to use the
savings to improve the capability of military infrared and
early warning satellites. In addition, the provision would
authorize the Secretary to use prior year funds for advance
procurement for SBIRS satellite 6. Finally, the provision would
set forth a sense of Congress that the cost savings achieved
through the contracting authority provided in the provision
should result in no less than 20 percent cost savings.
Transfer of certain fiscal year 2011 and 2012 funds for aircraft
procurement for the Air Force (sec. 145)
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
Secretary of the Air Force to use, subject to appropriations,
prior year funds that have been made available from program
cancellations reflected in the fiscal 2013 budget request. The
funds available from cancellations are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Amount
Program (Dollars in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light attack armed reconnaissance.............. $115.0
Light mobility aircraft........................ 65.3
Common vertical lift support platform.......... 52.8
C-130 avionics modernization program........... 207.2
RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30...................... 480.4
------------------------
Total...................................... $920.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters
Multiyear procurement authority for V-22 Joint Aircraft Program (sec.
151)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to buy V-22 aircraft for the
Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, and
the United States Special Operations Command under a multiyear
procurement contract. This would be the second multiyear
contract for the V-22 program. The Navy estimates that for the
second contract (for fiscal years 2013-2017), the Navy stands
to achieve almost 12 percent savings under the multiyear
approach, as compared to annual procurement contracts.
Limitation on availability of funds for full-rate production of
Handheld, Manpack, and Small Form/Fit radios under the Joint
Tactical Radio System program (sec. 152)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the obligation of any funds for full rate production of the
Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), Handheld, Manpack, and
Small Form/Fit (HMS) radios until the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD-ATL)
certifies to the congressional defense committees that there is
an approved acquisition strategy that promotes full and open
competition to the maximum extent practicable.
The committee continues to support the JTRS program and
remains convinced that managing program costs through
competition will contribute significantly to the success and
affordability of the Army's tactical network objectives. The
committee is also aware that for over a year the Joint Program
Office for JTRS has been preparing a detailed plan for an
innovative acquisition model that would take advantage of
competition based upon the availability of several developers
of software programmable tactical radios that could meet the
standards of JTRS. Accordingly, in last year's Senate report
accompanying S. 1253 (S. Rept. 112-26) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the committee directed
that the USD-ATL provide a briefing on the approved competition
strategy for JTRS HMS radios. The committee is concerned that
after nearly 1 year there is still no approved competition
strategy and that additional delay will make it more difficult
for potential JTRS tactical radio producers to meet the Army's
testing, certification, competition, and production objectives.
The committee believes that competition, taking maximum
advantage of both government and commercially developed and
available tactical radios that meet JTRS technical and
operational requirements, provides the Army the most affordable
and flexible means of realizing its plans for a fully networked
operational force.
Shallow Water Combat Submersible Program (sec. 153)
On November 9, 2010, U.S. Special Operations Command
(USSOCOM) provided the committee with a notification that the
Command had awarded a sole source contract for the Shallow
Water Combat Submersible (SWCS) program and stated ``the
contract provides only for firm-fixed-price task orders which
are established in the contract.'' USSOCOM has requested a
modification to its fiscal year 2013 budget request that would
transfer $8.0 million from Procurement, Defense-wide, to
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, to
pay for cost growth in the engineering and manufacturing
development phase of the SWCS program. According to U.S.
USSOCOM, ``extreme schedule variations from the baseline
resulted in the inability to accurately track progress and
cost.'' In response to an inquiry from committee staff
following notification of SWCS cost and schedule variations,
USSOCOM indicated ``the contract has a combination of cost
contract line items and firm fixed price contract line items.''
The committee is concerned by the inaccurate and misleading
contract notification described above and that it only learned
of the projected SWCS schedule and cost overruns following the
release of the fiscal year 2013 budget. The committee expects
full and accurate notification of contract awards and
reiterates its expectation that USSOCOM will keep it adequately
informed of such acquisition program deviations at the time
they are identified.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Commander of USSOCOM, not later than 90 days after enactment of
this Act, to provide the congressional defense committees with
a report describing: efforts by the contractor and USSOCOM to
more accurately track schedule and cost; the revised timeline
for SWCS initial and full operational capability; and the
projected cost to meet the basis of issue requirement. The
provision would also require that the Commander submit
quarterly updates on the metrics from the earned value
management system with which the Command is tracking cost and
scheduled performance of the contractor. That requirement shall
lapse once the SWCS has completed operational testing and has
been found to be operationally effective and operationally
suitable.
Budget Items
Army
Joint tactical radio systems integration
The budget request included $46.8 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA), for the integration of the Joint
Tactical Radio System (JTRS) onto the UH-60M Black Hawk and CH-
47 Chinook helicopters. The committee notes that the airborne
and maritime/fixed portion of the JTRS program is in the
process of a restructuring that will result in an updated
acquisition strategy, revised acquisition program baseline, and
updated test and evaluation master plan. It is unlikely that
JTRS radios will be available for integration before the end of
fiscal year 2014. The committee recommends a decrease of $44.0
million in APA for aircraft integration of the JTRS radio.
M88A2 improved recovery vehicle
The budget request included $107.9 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the M88A2 (Hercules)
improved recovery vehicle. The committee notes that the M88A2
is an upgrade program to the existing M88A1 recovery vehicle
making it the only vehicle capable of towing an M1 Abrams tank
without assistance from other vehicles. The Army planned to use
a mixed fleet of M88A2s and older M88A1s in its armor brigade
combat teams. M1 Abrams tanks require M88A2 recovery vehicles,
but the current M2 Bradley vehicles, and other armored vehicle
variants, can be recovered by the M88A1. The Army would
reconsider its recovery vehicle mix, if any, when the M2
Bradley replacement Ground Combat Vehicle program matures and
the recovery requirements of that vehicle are known. In the
meantime, there is risk of a suspension of the industrial
capability and capacity for production of M88A2 vehicles, as
well as likely production of the Paladin Integrated Management
program, and the potential production of a replacement for the
M113 family of armored personnel carriers.
The committee recommends an increase of $123.0 million in
WCTV for the M88A2 improved recovery vehicle to mitigate the
risk of the suspension of production through fiscal year 2013.
Advanced procurement for M1 Abrams tank upgrade program
The budget request included $74.4 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the M1 Abrams tank
upgrade program. The budget request funds technical support
services and the cost of fielding M1A2 System Enhancement
Package (SEP) tanks to the Army, but does not fund additional
tank upgrades. The committee recommends an increase of $91.0
million in WTCV only for the advanced procurement of critical
long-lead materials for the Abrams upgrade program.
The committee is aware that beginning in fiscal year 2014
the Army will suspend its M1 Abrams tank upgrade program for up
to 3 years at which time it plans to start its next series of
improvements. Congress provided additional funds in the fiscal
year 2012 appropriation to sustain tank production at the
facility through 2013 and into 2014. However, not enough tank
upgrade production is funded in the fiscal year 2013 request to
sustain the facility throughout 2014.
The Army's tank industrial base and production facility
could sustain its minimum capability and capacity over the next
3 years if a number of potential tank and other armored vehicle
sales to foreign allies are approved and orders finalized over
the next several months. If all projected and potential foreign
sales materialize, armored vehicle production could exceed the
minimum sustaining requirement asserted by the contractor until
the Army starts its next tank upgrade program.
Given that funds added by Congress in fiscal year 2012
already sustains production through fiscal year 2013, the
industrial base risk is limited to long-lead materials related
to potential production shortfalls in fiscal year 2014.
Accordingly, in order to reduce industrial risk among second
and third tier suppliers, the committee recommends an increase
of $91.0 million in WTCV for advance procurement of long-lead
materials for 33 additional tanks in the M1 Abrams upgrade
program. Advanced procurement is common to many large, complex
weapon systems programs in which funds are provided in 1 or
more years prior to the year of final production in order to
ensure the availability of those components that require a long
time to produce for installation at the appropriate point in
the assembly process.
Additional funds for M1 Abrams tank upgrade advanced
procurement should be targeted in a manner that best mitigates
the most acute criticality and fragility risks in the
industrial base among small suppliers who are in danger of
getting out of the tank components business 6 months or more
ahead of final tank production. The committee expects the Army
to use data developed by the Department of Defense's ongoing
sector by sector/tier by tier analysis of the defense
industrial base in making decisions on the allocation of these
funds.
Supporting long-lead suppliers with additional funds in
fiscal year 2013 also manages financial risk in this
challenging budget environment and allows time for the
resolution of sales to foreign allies that could stabilize and
sustain the flow of workload throughout the production cycle
for the Army's facility and suppliers. Congress retains the
flexibility to fund the completion of this tank production, if
necessary to sustain the facility's minimum requirements, in
fiscal year 2014.
Finally, the committee recognizes that the Army is working
through force structure and capability mix analysis and
decision making processes that to a significant extent will
determine the demand for tank production for the next 10 or
more years. Additionally, the Defense Department's and Army's
increased focus on building the capacity of partner nations
will create particular combat vehicle production demands.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
report not later than March 31, 2013, on the Army's analysis
and plans to utilize and configure it's government-owned/
contractor-operated tank production facility to efficiently and
effectively meet the Army's tank and other tracked and wheeled
vehicle production related requirements and foreign military
sales to meet Department partnership building capability goals
to 2025 and beyond.
Lightweight .50 caliber machine gun
The budget request included $25.2 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the XM806 lightweight
.50 caliber machine gun. The committee understands that the
Army will terminate this program and therefore recommends a
decrease of $25.2 million in WCTV for the XM806 lightweight .50
caliber machine gun.
The committee also understands that the decision to cancel
the XM806 program was based on the Army's recalculation of its
machine gun requirements given pending force structure
reductions and cost tradeoffs compared to upgrading the
currently fielded version of the M2A1 .50 caliber machine gun.
The committee is concerned that this decision may be
inconsistent with the Army's broader equipping objectives to
reduce the soldier's load while at the same time increasing the
capability and reliability of weapons. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit with its
fiscal year 2014 budget request submission, a report to the
congressional defense committees on its revised requirements
for M2 .50 caliber machine guns, in light of proposed force
structure reductions, with a description of its plan to meet
those requirements. The report should include: cost and
schedule plans for the overhaul of M2 .50 caliber weapons
through the future-years defense program (FYDP); the estimated
procurement average unit cost of M2 .50 caliber overhaul
compared to the cost of producing the XM806; the current number
of M2 and M2A1 machine guns in the Army inventory; the total
number of .50 caliber machine guns that would be in the
inventory at the end of the FYDP if funds for M2 overhaul were
allocated for new XM806 machine guns; the costs and benefits of
the XM806 compared to M2 and M2A1 weapons; and an assessment of
the potential impact of the Army's M2 and M2A1 plan to the
machine gun industrial base.
30mm and 40mm ammunition reductions for excess
The budget request included $1.7 billion in Procurement of
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $72.1 million was for 30mm and
$60.1 million was for 40mm.
The Government Accountability Office has identified $37.0
million in excess to requirements for 30mm in fiscal year 2013
due to changes in pricing. Additionally, $75.0 million in
excess to requirements in fiscal year 2011 funding for 40mm
ammunition has been identified and has been returned by the
Army's Program Executive Office for Ammunition to the Army
Budget Office for potential reprogramming. This funding remains
available for obligation until September 30, 2013, and if
released back to the program, $60.1 million could be used to
cover the Army's entire fiscal year 2013 procurement budget
request for 40mm ammunition.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $97.1
million in PAA: $37.0 million in 30mm and $60.1 million in
40mm.
Excalibur 1-b round schedule delay
The budget request included $110.3 million in Procurement
of Ammunition, Army (PAA), for 155mm extended range XM-982
(Excalibur 1-b).
The committee was briefed by the Army that the Excalibur 1-
b round will have a schedule delay in fiscal year 2013.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $55.0
million in PAA for 155mm extended range XM-982 munitions.
Spider network munitions reduction
The budget request included $1.7 billion in Procurement of
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $17.4 million was for Spider
network munitions.
The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation expressed
concerns with respect to the XM-7 Spider.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $14.3
million in PAA for Spider network munitions.
Family of medium tactical vehicles
The budget request included $346.1 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), for the procurement of Family of
Medium Tactical Vehicle (FMTV) trucks. The committee recommends
an increase of $50.0 million in OPA for FMTV trucks for the
U.S. Army Reserve.
Joint tactical radio system airborne and maritime/fixed radios
The budget request included $74.0 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), for the procurement of airborne and
maritime/fixed (AMF) radios. The committee notes that the AMF
portion of the Joint Tactical Radio System program is in the
process of a restructuring that will result in an updated
acquisition strategy, revised acquisition program baseline, and
updated test and evaluation master plan. It is unlikely that
JTRS radios will be available for integration onto Army
helicopters before the end of fiscal year 2014. The committee
recommends a decrease of $30.0 million in OPA for AMF radio.
Spider remote control unit
The budget request included $34.4 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), for the Spider remote control unit.
The committee notes that this technology is not performing as
expected and will not be approved for service use until awarded
a full material release and type classification late in fiscal
year 2013. The committee recommends a decrease of $21.0 million
in OPA for Spider remote control units.
Sense-through-the-wall sensor program
The budget request included $6.2 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), for the sense-through-the-wall (STTW)
sensor. The committee notes that the program has been delayed
due to technology performance issues and that most of the funds
provided in prior year appropriations remains unobligated. The
committee recommends a decrease of $6.2 million in OPA for
STTW.
Small unmanned ground vehicle
The budget request included $83.9 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), for the small unmanned ground vehicle
(SUGV). At the Army's request, the committee recommends a
decrease of $12.0 million in OPA for SUGV and an increase of
$12.0 million in PE 64641A for continued SUGV research and
development.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
The budget request included $227.4 million for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF) staff and
infrastructure line of operation. The committee recommends
transferring all of JIEDDF funds from title I to the same
budget activity in title XV, which funds the Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) of the Department. The committee
believes JIEDDO should be in the OCO portion of the budget
request as it was established in response to threats confronted
by U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
Navy
F/A-18E/F
The budget request included $3,063.6 million to purchase 26
F/A-18E/F aircraft and 12 EA-18G aircraft. The budget also
included $30.3 million for advance procurement of 13 F/A-18E/F
aircraft in fiscal year 2014. Fiscal year 2014 would represent
the final year of production for the Department of the Navy.
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 Hornets retire before the aircraft
carrier variant (F-35C) of the Joint Strike Fighter is
available.
This year, the Navy says that the maximum shortfall is now
projected to be around 56 aircraft. The Navy claims that the
estimated shortfall has not increased much since last year even
though the Department removed a total of 64 F-35B and F-35C
aircraft from the future-years defense program (FYDP). The
Navy's estimate of the shortfall is based on conducting
intensive management of the current inventory, making some
reduction in force structure within Marine Corps aviation, and
pursuing a service life extension program (SLEP) of 150 F/A-18
aircraft.
The Navy intends that a SLEP would extend the life of
select legacy F/A-18s from 8,600 to 10,000 flight hours. As
yet, the Navy does not have sufficient data to predict the
failure rate for aircraft being inducted into the SLEP program.
Too high a failure rate could leave the Navy with too few
aircraft that could benefit from the SLEP program, which would
exacerbate the shortfall projections.
The FYDP projection shows that the Navy intends to buy no
more EA-18G aircraft, despite the fact that the Marine Corps
intends to retire their fleet of EA-6B electronic warfare
aircraft without fielding a direct replacement.
Either a realization of a larger shortfall of strike
fighter inventory, or a new requirement to replace the
capability currently provided by the Marine Corps' EA-6B
aircraft could result in a demand for more aircraft beyond the
13 aircraft planned in fiscal year 2014. Therefore, the
committee believes it would be prudent to provide some
additional advance procurement funding in fiscal year 2013 to
allow the Navy and the Defense Department time to get better
data on the SLEP program and evaluate proposals to increase
requirements for the EA-18G aircraft to account for the
impending loss of the EA-6B aircraft. The committee recommends
an additional $60.0 million for advance procurement for F/A-
18E/F or EA-18G aircraft, to be obligated only if the Navy
budget request for fiscal year 2014 for F-18 aircraft includes
buying more than 13 new aircraft.
Close-in weapon system modifications
The budget request included $59.3 million to purchase and
install various modifications for the close-in weapon system
(CIWS), including $9.7 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 to be extended, 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 additional $7.7 million to buy 28 additional RMA
kits.
81mm, grenade, and demolition munitions reductions for excess
The budget request included $759.5 million in Procurement
of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps (PANMC), of which $13.7
million was for 81mm, $7.6 million was for grenades, and $2.0
million was for demolition munitions.
The Government Accountability Office has identified $12.5
million in excess to requirements for the Marine Corps' fiscal
year 2013 ammunition procurement request. Program officials
stated that changes in Marine Corps' methodology for
determining ammunition requirements for training, changes to
assumptions for calculating the necessary war reserves, and the
large amount of ammunition already in inventory or expected for
delivery, have made a portion of the fiscal year 2013 budget
request for specific ammunition types excess to program needs.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $12.5
million in PANMC: $10.0 million in 81mm, $0.5 million in
grenades, and $2.0 million in demolition munitions.
Air Force
Joint surveillance/target attack radar system
The budget request included $59.3 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the E-8 modifications
program and $24.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force for Joint Surveillance/Target
Attack Radar Systems (JSTARS). Unlike previous years, the Air
Force did not request procurement funding for the program to
re-engine JSTARS aircraft. A portion of RDT&E funding supports
continuing system development and demonstration (SDD) in the
re-engining program. The committee recommends an increase of
$12.0 million to the budget request for APAF to restart the
production line for the re-engining program.
The committee remains concerned by the slow progress of the
re-engining program despite years of significant congressional
support. The Air Force decided to delay the re-engining program
pending an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) of overall ground
moving target indicator (GMTI) requirements. Last year, the
Senate report accompanying S. 1235 (S. Rept. 112-26) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 said,
``Regardless of what that study concludes, however, the
committee believes that re-engining the JSTARS fleet makes
sense. . . . However, even if the Air Force study were to
conclude that some new system or combination of systems would
provide better broad area GMTI for the future, it is hard to
imagine that another alternative would actually begin complete
fielding of a JSTARS replacement capability before the re-
engining pays for itself.''
Therefore, the committee was troubled that funding
authorized and appropriated for re-engining over the past
several years has either been reprogrammed or remains unspent.
Last year, the committee recommended a provision requiring the
Air Force Audit Agency to submit to the congressional defense
committees the results of a financial audit of the funds
previously authorized and appropriated for the JSTARS aircraft
re-engining program. The committee still has not received the
results of that audit.
The Air Force has still not produced the AoA either, so the
budget remains silent on course of action for modernizing GMTI
capability. However, in testimony before the committee on March
22, 2012, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz
confirmed that the Air Force was going to stick with the E-8C
program, testifying, ``Notwithstanding the AoA . . . we will
continue with the combination of the JSTARS GMTI capability,
with the Block 40 Global Hawk.'' This prospect was confirmed in
the Department of Defense's Annual Aviation Inventory and
Funding Plan for Fiscal Years 2013-2042, which indicated that
the Department has no alternatives to JSTARS expected to emerge
in that 30-year period.
Since the Air Force will now clearly be keeping the E-8C
aircraft for the foreseeable future, the committee believes it
is even more critical that the Air Force budget sufficient
funds to sustain JSTARS for the long term. The committee
understands the need to proceed carefully through re-engining
SDD to collect all necessary data to inform decisions about
this program, as well as the difficulties associated with
restarting the re-engining process on a small fleet of aircraft
in a constant state of high operational tempo.
However, the committee believes that proceeding with re-
engining of the JSTARS fleet to improve performance and fuel
efficiency is consistent with warfighter requirements and Air
Force priorities.
Also, if the Air Force continues to operate the JSTARS
platform for the foreseeable future, the Service will have to
modernize other aspects of the JSTARS airframe and system. To
keep the JSTARS system viable and avoid erosion in performance,
the Air Force will have to pursue such modernization efforts as
upgrading radars, replacing diminishing manufacturing source
items (including those for primary mission equipment and
avionics), and improving communications and target
identification systems. From that perspective, the committee is
concerned that the current future-years defense program (FYDP)
includes minimal funding for JSTARS modernization efforts.
Therefore, the committee believes the Air Force should devote
increased funding toward JSTARS modernization in the next FYDP
to ensure that the JSTARS aircraft continue to fly and operate
for the foreseeable future, without any decrease in mission
capable rates or system performance.
Defense-wide
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
The budget request included $460.7 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide, for procurement of Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) interceptors. The committee notes that the
THAAD interceptor system has experienced difficulties with its
production process and has not yet been able to achieve the
planned production rate of four interceptors per month. Over
the past 2 years, this has led Congress to reduce funds below
the level requested for THAAD interceptor procurement by nearly
$400.0 million. As a result of these production challenges, the
schedule for THAAD interceptor deliveries has been delayed and
reduced significantly.
In the budget request, the Department of Defense would
reduce the planned number of THAAD batteries in the future-
years defense program (FYDP) from 9 to 6, and reduce the
corresponding number of THAAD interceptors by 157. Although the
Department maintains its previous procurement objective of 503
THAAD interceptors, this level would not be achieved until
after the FYDP. According to LTG Richard Formica, the Commander
of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, and Commander
of the Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated
Missile Defense, the decision to reduce THAAD procurement
during the FYDP was made by a broad range of senior defense and
military officials after careful consideration of the
integrated missile defense priorities of the combatant
commanders and the need to maintain a balance between homeland
defense and regional missile defense investments and
capabilities.
The committee notes that, as LTG Formica testified, ``the
demand for THAAD and TPY-2 radars--like the demand for other
missile defense assets--continues to increase and has not been
reduced by combatant commanders.'' The committee believes that
increasing the number of THAAD interceptors is the most cost-
effective and affordable way to provide increased capability to
regional combatant commanders.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0
million to Procurement, Defense-wide, for procurement of
additional THAAD interceptors.
Special operations aviation
The budget request included $99.8 million for the
procurement of seven Aviation Foreign Internal Defense (AvFID)
aircraft and $7.5 million for low cost modifications to U-28
aircraft in Procurement, Defense-wide.
Last year, the congressional defense committees expressed
concern about the AvFID and Non-Standard Aviation (NSAv)
programs and required a report from the Commander of U.S.
Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) describing these programs,
justifying their requirement, and analyzing efficiencies that
could be gained from procuring common special operations
aviation platforms, among other things. On March 5, 2012, the
Commander of USSOCOM delivered the required report to the
congressional defense committees with a revised strategy that
combines special operations AvFID and NSAv missions while
gaining additional manned intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. The committee supports this
revised strategy because it provides training and maintenance
efficiencies through the procurement of multi-mission platforms
for AvFID and NSAv missions, while also increasing much needed
ISR capacity to support deployed special operations forces.
Consistent with the new strategy outlined by the Commander
of USSOCOM, the committee recommends a transfer of $62.8
million within Procurement, Defense-wide, from the Non-Standard
Aviation budget line to the U-28 budget line. This transfer
would reduce AvFID procurement from seven to two aircraft and
increase the quantity of U-28 aircraft by four. Additionally,
the committee supports use of previously authorized funds to
re-mission previously acquired aircraft consistent with the
strategy laid out by the Commander of USSOCOM.
High definition full motion video
The budget request included no funding in Procurement,
Defense-wide, for high definition full motion video (HD FMV)
capabilities for airborne intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) platforms. The Commander of U.S. Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM) has indicated that the requirement
for HD FMV was not quantified until after the fiscal year 2013
budget request was finalized and has identified it as the only
fiscal year 2013 unfunded requirement for special operations
forces.
In testimony before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats
and Capabilities on March 27, 2012, the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict stated
``the high definition capability is a game changer for decision
makers'' because it provides a greater degree of clarity in
making decisions regarding the use of force, while minimizing
the risk of collateral damage. Additionally, the Commander of
USSOCOM has told the committee ``Recent operational success
highlighted the need for the HD FMV capability to be fielded on
special operations platforms as soon as possible.''
The committee recommends total increases of $142.4 million
in Procurement, Defense-wide, $16.5 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, and $0.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for the
fielding of additional HD FMV capabilities. The committee is
aware that USSOCOM intends to begin to address this urgent
requirement using previously authorized and appropriated funds,
including $9.5 million in Combat Mission Requirements funds and
a $29.6 million Above Threshold Reprogramming request.
Items of Special Interest
Common remotely operated weapon station
The committee notes that funding for the common remotely
operated weapon station (CROWS) has been transferred from the
Overseas Contingency Operations budget to the Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles appropriation in the Army's base budget
for fiscal year 2013. The committee is also aware that the Army
released a request for proposals in January 2012, to initiate a
competition for the next-generation of CROWS systems with
contract award projected for early in fiscal year 2013.
The committee supports this competitive acquisition
strategy; however, the Army has not yet decided on a CROWS
basis of issue plan and therefore there is uncertainty with
respect to the overall Army acquisition objective for this
system. The committee is aware that the Army currently has over
6,400 CROWS systems in its inventory and estimates for an
acquisition objective vary from as few as just over 11,000 to
as many as 14,000.
The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (ASA-ALT) to notify
the congressional defense committees when decisions are made
that establish a CROWS basis of issue plan and an acquisition
objective. Following notification, the ASA-ALT shall provide a
briefing that describes the CROWS acquisition strategy
including a full and open competition, Army acquisition
objective, other services' acquisition objectives, if any, as
well as a funding profile and schedule through the future-years
defense program.
Impact of Global Hawk Block 30 termination
The committee directs that the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics provide a briefing
to the congressional defense and intelligence committees on the
likely impact of the termination on the MQ-4C Broad-Area
Maritime Surveillance System (BAMS) program no later than July
31, 2012.
The committee understands that the unit price of the BAMS
aircraft could also be affected by decisions on the continued
production of Global Hawk Block 40 aircraft for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Alliance Ground
Surveillance (AGS) program and for the Air Force. Therefore,
the committee would also like to understand the impact on the
unit price of BAMS if the NATO AGS program does not proceed
with the acquisition of five Global Hawk aircraft, or if the
Air Force terminates its Block 40 program, or if both of these
contingencies were to occur.
Integrated base defense
The committee is aware of Department of Defense efforts to
develop and field technologies that address threats to forward
stationed and deployed military installations as well as those
within the United States. The committee is encouraged by the
inclusion of funds for integrated base defense programs in the
fiscal year 2013 budget and the potential of a variety of
technologies that could provide joint, interoperable force
protection systems and better protect our installations,
regardless of size, with increased efficiency and
affordability.
The committee directs that the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, or his designee, in
consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments,
provide the congressional defense committees with a briefing
not later than March 31, 2013, on the Department of Defense's
requirements determination and technology development,
acquisition, and fielding plans to provide capabilities to
improve integrated base defense systems.
Joint strike fighter program
Department of Defense (DOD) officials have testified that
the F-35 ``Lightning II'' Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is
the most concurrent program in DOD recent experience.
Concurrency refers to the overlap between system development
and testing, and production. Excessive concurrency arises when
a program's development and production overlap to the extent
that major, expensive changes identified in testing have to be
made in production items after they are on the production line
or after they are delivered.
According to JSF's Program Executive Officer,
``Fundamentally, that was a miscalculation . . . You'd like to
take the keys to your shiny new jet and give it to the fleet
with all the capability and all the service life they want.
What we're doing is, we're taking the keys to the shiny new
jet, giving it to the fleet and saying, `Give me that jet back
in the first year. I've got to go take it up to this depot for
a couple of months and tear into it and put in some structural
mods, because if I don't, we're not going to be able to fly it
more than a couple, three, four, five years.' That's what
concurrency is doing to us.''
The Acting Under Secretary of Defense of Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics was considerably more pointed in his
assessment, referring to the decision made years ago to put JSF
into production before flight testing had started as
``acquisition malpractice.'' He noted that the program was
started with ``the optimistic prediction that we were good
enough at modeling and simulation that we would not find
problems in flight test . . . That was wrong, and now we are
paying for that.''
The committee agrees with these appraisals and views them
as a valuable starting point that may help ensure that the
additional 33 months and $7.9 billion that DOD has added to the
previous JSF development plan will result in a sustainable
program capable of delivering the required capability to the
warfighter. The committee remains concerned that, even with
these changes, the level of concurrency risk that still resides
in the program may be excessive.
Because of concern about the lack of a coherent concurrency
change management strategy in the JSF program, the committee
declined to approve DOD's request to reprogram funds from other
programs to cover part of a roughly $771.0 million cost overrun
in low-rate initial production lots (LRIP) lots 1 through 3.
Unfortunately, the cost growth problem persists. As of
March 2012, DOD estimates total concurrency costs for LRIP-1 at
$50.1 million; LRIP-2, $300.3 million; LRIP-3, $319.1 million;
and LRIP-4, $523.3 million. The committee does not find this
trend encouraging and believes that the program must ensure
that these costs are managed more effectively and that the
prime contractor share equitably in them.
In addition to concurrency change management, the committee
is concerned about the JSF program's lack of progress in
software development. The most recent Selected Acquisition
Report for this program identified this issue as ``a
significant area of focus,'' Challenges facing efforts to
develop and integrate software Block 1B and Block 2A appear to
be affecting the successful delivery of Block 2B capability.
While the program has built capacity in the integrated master
schedule for discovering and dealing with problems in the
development of Blocks 2 and 3, the potential cascading effect
of failures to deliver software capability on the balance of a
major developmental program like JSF can be particularly
pernicious.
The committee, therefore, believes that the contracting
strategy for this program should target improved performance in
the development of software to ensure that the Block 2A
schedule will be met. To ensure the dependable delivery of
needed software capability, the Joint Program Office (JPO) and
the prime contractor must work collaboratively to properly
assess software maturity for readiness to proceed to flight-
testing and for production-release; provide for sufficient
schedule capacity to support the production and delivery of
unscheduled software builds; move towards automatically
generated, data-driven capability maturity metrics across the
entire air-system; and structure the program's management of
software development to enable premeditated trades among
capability, cost, and schedule.
The committee is similarly concerned about production
quality and whether it is sufficient to ensure the delivery of
JSF aircraft to the U.S. and its allies at an affordable price.
The average rate of scrap, rework, and repair at the prime
contractor's main manufacturing facility from 2009 through the
first 2 months of 2012 gives rise to concern. Inattention to
production quality also appears to have contributed to
discovery of a potentially serious issue with an aperture on
the aircraft critical to its electronic warfare capability.
While the full extent of this problem is presently unknown, it
underscores the fact that DOD and the contractor team must
rigorously manage production quality.
With the foregoing in mind, the committee is hopeful about
an approach that DOD has taken to try to address some of the
issues described above. Under this approach, called a
``development dial'' or ``dial-up'' approach, DOD would
modulate its purchase of future aircraft for which funding has
been authorized and appropriated based on how the prime
contractor performs in the areas of concurrency risk reduction,
software development, flight-testing, and durability.
While the committee believe this approach holds merit, it
also believes that the approach's success in incentivizing
desired contractor performance will require that DOD identify a
very clear, specific, and realistically achievable set of
performance criteria upfront. The specificity of these criteria
should be sufficient to convey to the prime contractor what
constitutes desired performance and how its performance, once
rendered, would be assessed. The committee directs DOD to
provide these criteria to the congressional defense committees
before they are actually implemented so that the committees may
assess their efficacy.
Paladin integrated management program
The committee has observed over many years and programs
that the challenges of development, testing, production, and
fielding schedules must be carefully estimated and tradeoffs
managed to avoid increasing risk and cost to the overall
program. In the case of the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM)
program, however, the committee recognizes the potential to
accelerate elements of the development and production schedules
that could result in the earlier delivery of improved artillery
capability to the Army. According to the Army's current
production schedule, the PIM program will receive a Milestone C
decision in June 2013, and a full-rate production decision in
January 2017. The committee is aware that the Army is
conducting a business case analysis to identify and assess
options with respect to the cost effectiveness of the program's
schedule, the health and readiness of the industrial base, and
opportunities, if any, to accelerate development, production,
and fielding of this system.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees within 30 days
of the completion of the business case analysis. The report
shall include delineation and an assessment of feasible and
affordable courses of action that includes contract and
accelerated schedule options and a detailed explanation of any
program decisions that result from the business case analysis.
Rotary-wing planning tools
The committee is aware that the Army has no documented
requirement for a rotary wing performance mission planning tool
but that a variety of tools and capabilities are available that
could increase the safety and effectiveness of helicopter
operations. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
provide a briefing and corresponding data to the congressional
defense committees by January 31, 2013, assessing the Army's
current helicopter operations mission planning tools and
capabilities, and efforts to develop or acquire such
capabilities if required, suitable, effective, and affordable.
Summary of discretionary authorizations and budget implication
The administration's budget request for national defense
discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services for fiscal year 2013 was $631.6
billion. Of this amount, $525.3 billion was requested for base
Department of Defense programs, $88.5 billion was requested for
overseas contingency operations, and $17.8 billion was
requested for national security programs in the Department of
Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
The bill authorizes $631.4 billion in fiscal year 2013,
including $525.8 billion for base Department of Defense
programs, $88.2 billion for overseas contingency operations,
and $17.3 billion for national security programs in the
Department of Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board.
The administration's fiscal year 2013 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 $646.7 billion.
The following two tables summarize the direct
authorizations and the equivalent budget authority levels for
fiscal year 2013 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 do not require an
annual authorization.
Use of advance procurement for major systems
The Department of Defense (DOD) has traditionally requested
advance procurement funding to support the efficient
procurement and production rates for significant annual buys
and multiyear purchases of weapon systems and equipment. The
fiscal year 2012 budget request did not include any advance
procurement funding for C-130J aircraft the Air Force intended
to purchase in fiscal year 2013. However, Congress added $120.0
million for this purpose in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74), based on information that such
advance procurement would reduce overall costs of the program.
In the fiscal year 2013 budget request, the Air Force again
failed to ask for advance procurement funding for the 27 HC/MC/
AC-130J aircraft the Department intends to purchase in fiscal
year 2014. In responding to questions from the committee last
year, DOD indicated that adding advance procurement funding for
C-130J aircraft in fiscal year 2012 could result in net savings
to the government. Also, internal Air Force documents asserted
that failure to include advance procurement funding would
result in increased unit cost and delayed delivery of aircraft
to the warfighter.
The committee believes that DOD should apply traditional
advance procurement funding practices consistently across all
DOD aircraft procurement programs, particularly when having
advance procurement funding would result in more efficient
production and lower costs. The committee expects that DOD will
explain the rationale for any departure from the normal
practice of providing advance procurement funding, including
why such a departure is more efficient or more effective.
U.S. Special Operations Command Budget line items
The committee notes that in recent years the number of
budget line items associated with U.S. Special Operations
Command (USSOCOM) research and development and procurement
activities has grown. The committee believes adequate fidelity
in USSOCOM's budget justification documents is critical to
performance of its oversight responsibilities. However, the
committee also understands that congressionally imposed
reprogramming thresholds may, in some cases, have a disparate
impact on USSOCOM as compared to the military departments
because of the number of relatively small USSOCOM budget line
items, thereby reducing USSOCOM's budget flexibility to meet
command requirements. The committee would welcome a proposal
from USSOCOM to address this issue by consolidating appropriate
budget line items in future years, while providing equal or
better fidelity in the budget justification documents to the
congressional defense committees.
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
Next Generation Foundry for the Defense Microelectronics Activity (sec.
211)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense from executing any funds in PE
603720S for the 90 nanometer Next Generation Foundry until 60
days after the Department delivers to the congressional defense
committees a defense microelectronics strategy and a full life
cycle cost estimate of the Defense Microelectronics Activity's
Next Generation Foundry. This strategy, as well as the
committee's recommendation to decrease funds available in this
program element, are described elsewhere in this report.
Advanced rotorcraft initiative (sec. 212)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics (USD(AT&L)) to develop and submit a strategy to the
congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after
the enactment of this Act on the use of integrated platform
design teams and agile prototyping approaches for the
development of advanced rotorcraft capabilities.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has recently stated that increasing prototyping of advanced
technology capabilities is a potential approach to be able to
keep the technical expertise of the defense industrial base
exercised in a reduced budgetary environment. With declining
budgets leading to reduced numbers of acquisition programs and
quantities of weapon systems, it is crucial that design
experience and skills in the various sectors of the defense
industrial base be preserved. These skills are important not
only to be readily available when the Department requires them,
but the ability to sustain and pass these skills on to
successive generations of engineers is intertwined intimately
with the challenges of attracting and retaining the best and
brightest engineers and technicians to work in both the public
and private sectors of the national security enterprise. Such
talent will not be recruited or retained without the key
attraction of multiple opportunities for very challenging work
over the course of one's professional career.
One of the key challenges facing the defense industrial
base today is that the design and development cycles of major
defense acquisition programs (MDAP) are so protracted. The
skills typically acquired and honed through multiple design
cycles are not being adequately learned. The result is that
many of the MDAPs are behind schedule and above cost because
the design and development teams are actually doing ``on the
job training''. Such a situation is far from acceptable, and
hence the acknowledgement that the DOD needs to develop a
comprehensive strategy identifying and growing integrated
platform design teams. Providing these teams the opportunity to
exercise their skills in a series of relatively frequent
prototyping activities is long overdue.
The Department needs to go beyond the rhetoric of
occasional speeches and needs to undertake a serious effort to
develop a comprehensive strategy that encompasses elements
within USD(AT&L) including the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)) and the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial
Base Policy, as well as the services. Two key elements that
must be addressed in such a strategy are integrated platform
design teams and agile prototyping activities.
Depending upon the defense industrial base sector,
integrated platform design teams should be viewed as critical
national assets. They can provide the capability to quickly
develop and field revolutionary defense capabilities. These
teams are small, by nature, typically consisting of an
engineering and design core of less than 50 people. This core
group is prized for its cross-disciplinary nature, breadth of
knowledge, and past experience with successfully shepherding
defense products all the way from concept to initial fielding.
As demonstrated in the ``golden age'' of aerospace
development, integrated platform design teams were most
effectively built and managed by running complex, integrated
development projects in rapid succession, preferably with 1-4
year timelines. The most effective projects involved complex,
integrated systems or platforms (such as complete aircraft),
which also drove advancement of subsystems and component
technologies beyond what was available off-the-shelf
commercially.
Closing the design-to-initial operations cycle is essential
to building and maintaining design capabilities. The successful
core design team is typically surrounded by talented
technicians and operators. In this manner, engineering,
manufacturing, testing, and operations capabilities are tightly
integrated without organizational or communications barriers.
The close interactions between these various areas of expertise
promote design validation through real-world operational
experimentation.
Lastly, it is imperative that the core engineers work under
streamlined management, driven to motivate and empower the
team. To foster rapid technological advances, the team must be
granted significant requirements leeway and be insulated from
excessive pressures of process, thus focusing entirely on time
and cost-effective development and fielding.
In the absence of sufficient new major defense acquisition
programs, a mechanism to keep integrated platform design teams
exercised is the use of agile prototyping. This concept,
sometimes referred to as exploratory development, is a
framework to ensure that rapid, higher risk technology
development can continue without the linkages to formal
requirements and the attendant commitment to production and a
formal acquisition program. In the historical parlance of
aeronautics, X-planes have been the classic example. The point
of such technology development activities is not to produce
systems that have a formal operational requirement, but to
create technology options and reduce technical risk for
whenever formal operational and programmatic requirements
emerge in the future.
One area of the defense industrial base that has not seen
significant new innovations is rotorcraft. Over the last
decade, rotorcraft have been crucial in our war fighting
operations. The committee believes that among the various
defense industrial base sectors, the preservation of integrated
platform design teams and the use of agile prototyping is most
needed in this sector. The committee observes that it has been
over 2 decades since the last completely new DOD rotorcraft,
the V-22 Osprey, was developed.
Last year, the committee expressed its views on the state
of DOD's rotorcraft science and technology (S&T) activities in
its report. The committee continues to express concern over the
overall state of DOD's rotorcraft S&T programs. Specifically,
the committee strongly believes that the DOD is not engaging to
the maximum possible extent in a coordinated fashion with its
limited resources with the broadest range of industry and
academia to foster innovative concepts for the next-generation
of rotorcraft. The committee acknowledges the efforts that the
ASD(R&E) is taking to coordinate the DOD's rotorcraft S&T
activities, primarily by the Army, and its claims that it is
making progress on the S&T plan in the Future Vertical Lift
(FVL) Strategic Plan.
USD(AT&L)'s Vertical Lift Consortium (VLC)--self-formed by
industry over 2 years ago--is not being exercised adequately by
the services. The VLC is an open and competitive forum that
leverages all sectors of the vertical lift community to
encourage teaming of innovative small business and non-
traditional contractors with major defense firms and academia.
The VLC is contracted with the DOD through the establishment of
an Other Transaction Authority (OTA). The OTA allows the
formation of competitive teams to rapidly develop and flight
demonstrate innovative vertical lift technologies that address
capability gaps identified in the DOD FVL Strategic Plan such
as performance, survivability, and affordability. The committee
understands the DOD is completing an overdue report on the VLC
that was called for by the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives last year that was due April 1, 2012.
The Army is pursuing its Joint Multi-role (JMR) development
program--without funding from other services. Absent further
funding, current plans envision only one technology
demonstrator in the 2017-2020 timeframe and initial fielding of
a platform in the 2030 timeframe. The committee is concerned
that only a single technology demonstrator will fly and that
pressures will be such that this vehicle will ultimately turn
into the platform for the program of record--thus suppressing a
truly competitive process for innovative concepts. Furthermore,
the committee strongly urges that the Army develop Technology
Capability Enabled Demonstrations, as it has for soldier-
centric technologies, for advancing rotorcraft capabilities.
In addition, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) has launched an X-Plane Rotorcraft program in fiscal
year 2013 and it remains to be seen what this program will lead
to. The committee strongly urges DARPA to structure its X-Plane
Rotorcraft program to develop specific performance steps beyond
the Army's desired attributes for platforms under the JMR
program. DARPA should also consider expanding its X-Plane
Rotorcraft program to provide for at least two competing teams.
In addition, the committee urges DARPA to investigate how
advances that it is making in advanced manufacturing can be
applicable to the rotorcraft sector.
Given the situation depicted above, the committee directs
that the USD(AT&L), working with the services and DARPA,
develop and submit to the congressional defense committees a
strategy that will address measures that DOD will take to
retain--and where appropriate--develop, integrated platform
design teams. Given the complexity of this problem, this
strategy shall focus initially on the rotorcraft sector. The
strategy shall also address how agile prototyping practices and
programs can be established, including rotorcraft X-planes, and
what level of resources would be required. The strategy should
consider possibly restructuring the Army's JMR program to
include more technology demonstration platforms with challenge
goals of significant reductions in cost and time to flight.
Lastly, the strategy should also address how other
innovative approaches such as competitive prize awards can be
applied. The committee found it disappointing that in a report
by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, dated March
2012, ``Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Progress
Report'', there was only one example of DOD using this prize
authority. The strategy should address how prizes could be
potentially used to address some challenge problems, primarily
for unmanned rotorcraft, such as: nap-of-earth automated
flight, urban operation near buildings, slope landings,
automated autorotation or power-off recovery, and automated
selection of landing areas.
In the development of this strategy, the committee directs
the USD(AT&L) to work with the VLC for their inputs and to
consider both manned and unmanned rotorcraft across the broad
range of DOD missions.
Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Navy research, development, test,
and evaluation funds (sec. 213)
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
Secretary of the Navy to use, subject to appropriations, prior
year funds that have been made available from program
cancellations reflected in the fiscal 2013 budget request. The
funds available from cancellations are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Amount
Program (Dollars in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium-range Maritime Unmanned Aerial System... $8.8
------------------------
Total...................................... $8.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority for Department of Defense laboratories to enter into
education partnerships with educational institutions in United
States territories and possessions (sec. 214)
The committee recommends a provision, based upon a
Department of Defense legislative proposal, that would
authorize the directors of defense laboratories to enter into
education partnership agreements with educational institutions
in United States territories and possessions. Currently, a
defense laboratory can only enter into an education partnership
with educational institutions in the 50 states and the District
of Columbia.
This provision will increase opportunities for defense
laboratories to interact with additional educational
institutions to further science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics objectives. In addition, this provision would
provide a potential opportunity for educational institutions in
the U.S. territories and possessions to contribute to the
national defense through a partnership with a Department of
Defense laboratory.
Transfer of certain fiscal year 2012 Air Force research, development,
test, and evaluation funds (sec. 215)
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
Secretary of the Air Force to use, subject to appropriations,
prior year funds that have been made available from program
cancellations reflected in the fiscal 2013 budget request. The
funds available from cancellations are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Amount
Program (Dollars in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-130 avionics modernization program........... $6.5
Miniature air-launched decoy, phase II......... 7.9
RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30...................... 64.0
------------------------
Total...................................... $78.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Matters
Homeland ballistic missile defense (sec. 231)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress on homeland ballistic missile defense, and
would require a report on the status of efforts to improve the
homeland defense capability of the United States.
The committee notes that the first policy priority
described in the February 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review
is to continue providing homeland ballistic missile defense
against the potential future threat of limited ballistic
missile attack from nations such as North Korea and Iran. The
currently deployed Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system,
with 30 Ground-Based Interceptors deployed in Alaska and
California, provides protection of the United States against
such future threats. This policy relies on two approaches: 1)
improving the reliability and performance of the GMD system,
particularly its Ground-Based Interceptors; and 2) taking
prudent steps to hedge against the possibility that the threat
might grow faster or larger than anticipated. The Department of
Defense is taking significant steps on both approaches. The
provision would require the Department to report on the steps
it is taking on both approaches, including the results of its
efforts to demonstrate in flight testing the correction to the
problem that caused the GMD flight test failure of December
2010.
Regional ballistic missile defense (sec. 232)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress on regional ballistic missile defense, and
would require a report on the European Phased Adaptive Approach
to missile defense and other regional missile defense efforts
of the United States.
The committee notes that the threat to forward-deployed
U.S. forces, allies and partners from regional ballistic
missiles, particularly from Iran and North Korea, is serious
and growing rapidly. Consequently, the Department of Defense
has ``made defending against near-term regional threats a top
priority in our missile defense plans, programs and
capabilities,'' as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated in
the Ballistic Missile Defense Review of February 2010.
The committee believes the Department of Defense has an
obligation to provide force protection to forward-deployed U.S.
forces, assets, and facilities, and to defend allies, from the
threat of regional ballistic missile attack. The Department is
implementing a set of programs and efforts to enhance U.S. and
allied capabilities to defend against such regional ballistic
missiles, especially against Iran and North Korea. These
efforts, which include the European Phased Adaptive Approach to
missile defense and similar phased and adaptive efforts
tailored to the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region, are
essential to providing force protection for our deployed
forces. These efforts are balanced with programs to enhance
homeland defense, and are designed to meet the integrated
missile defense priorities of the geographic combatant
commands. Some of the regional missile defense capabilities,
such as forward-deployed AN/TPY-2 missile defense radars in
Japan and Turkey, and development of the Standard Missile-3
Block IIB interceptor missile, are intended to enhance homeland
defense.
The Department also has numerous programs of cooperation
with international partners to improve regional missile defense
capabilities, including our North Atlantic Treaty Organization
allies, Israel, and Japan, among others. The committee supports
these regional missile defense programs and partnerships, and
believes they are an important component of regional security
and stability.
Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress in support of efforts of the United States to
pursue 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
the United States should pursue such cooperation in a manner
that does not in any way limit United States missile defenses
and that ensures the protection of United States classified
information. The provision also states the view that the United
States should not provide Russia with sensitive missile defense
information that would in any way compromise United States
national security, including ``hit-to-kill'' technology and
interceptor telemetry.
The committee notes that, for more than a decade, the
United States has been pursuing and discussing, cooperation
with Russia on shared early warning and ballistic missile
defense issues. Congress has supported such efforts, and
section 221 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) states the sense
of Congress ``to support the efforts of the United States
government and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to pursue
cooperation with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile
defense relative to Iranian missile threats.''
In addition to United States bilateral efforts with Russia
on missile defense cooperation, NATO has undertaken efforts to
seek such cooperation with Russia. At the Lisbon Summit in
November 2010, NATO committed to ``actively seek cooperation on
missile defense with Russia,'' and declared that ``NATO-Russia
cooperation is of strategic importance,'' and that ``the
security of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Russia
is intertwined.''
The committee believes that missile defense cooperation
with Russia could enhance the security of the United States,
and could send a strong signal to Iran that the United States
and Russia are joined in their opposition to Iran's nuclear and
missile programs. The committee commends the administration for
seeking such cooperation, and for its commitment to take the
steps necessary to ensure that United States information is
adequately safeguarded, including its commitment to ``not
provide Russia with sensitive information that would in any way
compromise our national security, including hit-to-kill
technology and interceptor telemetry,'' as stated by Robert
Nabors, Assistant to the President and Director of the Office
of Legislative Affairs in a letter dated April 13, 2012.
Next-generation Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (sec. 234)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency to develop a long-term
plan for the Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) that addresses
both modifications and enhancements to the current EKV and
options for the competitive development of a next-generation
EKV for the Ground-Based Interceptor of the Ground-Based
Midcourse Defense system and any other interceptor that might
be developed for the defense of the United States against long-
range ballistic missiles. The provision would also require the
Director to submit a report to Congress setting forth the plan
and an estimate of the cost and schedule of implementing the
plan.
Modernization of the Patriot air and missile defense system (sec. 235)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to submit to the congressional
defensecommittees a plan for support of requirements in
connection with the modernization of the Patriot air and
missile defense system. The plan would also include an
assessment of the integrated air and missile defense
capabilities required to meet the demands of evolving and
emerging threats, and a plan for achieving reductions in the
life cycle cost of the Patriot system.
Medium Extended Air Defense System (sec. 236)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2013 funds for the
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).
Section 235 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) limited the obligation or
expenditure of more than 25 percent of the fiscal year 2012
funds authorized for MEADS until the Department of Defense
submitted to the congressional defense committees a plan to use
such funds as final obligations for the MEADS program. The
Department submitted that plan in April 2012, as described
elsewhere in this report.
Although the budget request included $400.9 million for the
MEADS program, the committee believes it would be inconsistent
with section 235 to authorize additional funds for MEADS, or to
allow additional funds to be obligated or expended for MEADS.
The committee is aware that additional funding would be
needed for the Army to continue providing security and
technology transfer support for sensitive MEADS-related
technology and equipment furnished by the United States to
Germany and Italy on a temporary basis, in the event Germany
and Italy choose to proceed without the United States for an
additional year of MEADS design and development.
The committee understands the importance of ensuring the
necessary security and technology transfer support for this
sensitive technology and equipment until it is returned to the
United States, and does not intend to hinder the ability of the
Army to provide such security.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
the committee, within 30 days after the enactment of this Act,
a revised estimate as to how much it would cost for the United
States MEADS National Program Office to provide appropriate
oversight and security of the sensitive U.S. Government
Furnished Equipment (GFE) relative to the program. The
committee further directs the Secretary to provide the
committee with a plan for how the Army intends to budget for
these costs through fiscal year 2013 utilizing funds authorized
and appropriated in fiscal year 2012.
The committee is aware of the possibility that additional
legislative authority may be necessary to permit the Army to
ensure continued security and technology transfer support for
the sensitive GFE. The committee directs the Army to provide
the committee with any views on this matter on an expedited
basis, to permit early committee consideration of such views.
Availability of funds for Iron Dome short-range rocket defense program
(sec. 237)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to provide up to $210.0 million in
fiscal year 2013 funds to the Government of Israel for the Iron
Dome short-range rocket defense system.
After the budget request was submitted, the Department of
Defense announced it would submit a request for additional
funding to provide to the Government of Israel to procure
additional Iron Dome short-range rocket defense systems.
Although the Department has not yet submitted the request, the
committee understands that the fiscal year 2013 funding request
will be for $210.0 million. The committee is aware of reports
that the request being considered by the Department could
include funding of as much as $680.0 million over multiple
fiscal years, including fiscal year 2013. The committee looks
forward to receiving the Department's request, and to
continuing its support for Israel's missile defense programs,
as described elsewhere in this report.
The committee notes that Israel has recently come under
fire from short-range rockets from the Gaza strip. Israel
currently has three operational Iron Dome batteries, and a
fourth battery nearing deployment. However, these existing
batteries do not provide adequate protection for the populated
areas in Israel within range of short-range rocket attacks. The
funding authorized in the provision would permit Israel to
acquire additional Iron Dome systems to provide protection for
more of its population against recurring short-range rocket
attacks.
Subtitle D--Reports
Mission packages for the littoral combat ship (sec. 251)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to produce a report, in consultation with
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, on the mine
countermeasures warfare, antisubmarine warfare, and surface
warfare mission packages for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).
The Secretary's report would be required, at a minimum, to
set forth the following:
(1) A plan for the Mission Packages demonstrating
that Preliminary Design Review for every capability
increment precedes Milestone B or equivalent approval
for that increment;
(2) A plan for demonstrating that the capability
increment for each Mission Package, combined with a
Littoral Combat Ship, on the basis of a Preliminary
Design Review and post-Preliminary Design Review
assessment, will achieve the capability specified for
that increment; and
(3) A plan for demonstrating the survivability and
lethality of the Littoral Combat Ship with its Mission
Packages sufficiently early in the development phase of
the system to minimize costs of concurrency.
The committee remains concerned about this program's
ability to deliver combat-ready LCS when our sailors need them
in support of worldwide maritime operations. The development
and fielding of these mission module capabilities will require
the Navy to field a range of 24 critical technologies,
including sensors, vehicles, and weapons. In addition, there
have been perturbations in the objective systems to be deployed
in the mission modules, as the Navy is replacing some items
because of poor performance or increasing costs. All of this
argues for pursuing the regular order in defining, developing,
testing, and fielding incremental improvements in capability
for the LCS. This provision will make it clear that the Navy
should follow a regular, transparent process in managing the
mission module program.
Comptroller General of the United States annual reports on the
acquisition program for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (sec.
252)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General to conduct an annual review of the Marine
Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle acquisition program, and to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 15 of each year, from 2013 until the award of the first
contract for full rate production. Where appropriate and
feasible, each report shall assess whether the program is
meeting cost, schedule, performance, and risk mitigation goals;
the progress and results of developmental and operational
testing and plans to correct any shortcomings in vehicle
performance, operational effectiveness, reliability,
suitability, and safety; the procurement plans, production
results, and efforts to improve manufacturing efficiency and
supplier performance; the acquisition strategy, including
whether it complies with acquisition management best practices
and the acquisition policies and regulations of the Department
of Defense; and, the risks reflected in the integrated master
schedule and test and evaluation master plan related to
probability of success, funding required for the vehicle
compared to funding programmed, and development and production
concurrency. In addition, the first report shall assess the
sufficiency and objectivity of the analysis of alternatives,
the initial capabilities document, and the capability
development document.
While the committee fully supports the Marine Corps'
efforts to develop and field a capable replacement for its
Vietnam-era Assault Amphibious Vehicle, the committee is
mindful of the cost increases, schedule delays, and performance
problems associated with the Marine Corps' last attempt to
develop such a replacement under the cancelled Expeditionary
Fighting Vehicle program. Given the importance of the
Amphibious Combat Vehicle, the committee intends to subject the
program to continuing and robust oversight.
Conditional requirement for report on amphibious assault vehicles for
the Marine Corps (sec. 253)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to
jointly submit to the congressional defense committees a report
by February 1, 2013, if the ongoing Marine Corps ground combat
vehicle fleet mix study recommends the acquisition of a Marine
Personnel Carrier (MPC). The report would include an
explanation of the role of the MPC in fulfilling the two Marine
Expeditionary Brigades (MEB) forcible entry requirement; the
fraction of the assault echelon of the MEBs comprised of MPCs,
along with an assessment of the operational risks associated
with using ship-to-shore connectors to ferry MPCs rather than
tanks and artillery; and an estimate of the acquisition and
life cycle costs of a split fleet of Amphibious Combat Vehicles
and MPCs as compared to the costs of a pure fleet of Amphibious
Combat Vehicles.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Transfer of administration of Ocean Research and Resources Advisory
Panel from Department of the Navy to National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (sec. 271)
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.
Budget Items
Army
Medium Extended Air Defense System
The budget request included $400.9 million in PE 64869A for
development of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).
Under the tri-national (United States, Germany and Italy)
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on development of MEADS, the
Department of Defense is obligated to seek fiscal year 2013
congressional funding for the MEADS program as the final
increment of U.S. funding.
The committee notes that section 235 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), limited the obligation or expenditure of more than 25
percent of the fiscal year 2012 funds for MEADS until the
Department submits a plan to use such funds as final
obligations under the MEADS program for either: (1)
implementing a restructured program of reduced scope; or (2)
contract termination liability costs with respect to the
contracts covering the program. In keeping with section 235 of
that Act, the committee recommends a reduction of $400.9
million in PE 64869A, the entire amount of the budget request
for continued development of the MEADS program.
On April 26, 2012, the Department of Defense submitted a
report to the congressional defense committees with the plan
required by section 235. The Department reported that it plans
to ``use the FY [fiscal year] 2012 funds as final obligations
to implement a restructured program of reduced scope.'' In
accordance with section 235, Department of Defense officials
proposed options to their German and Italian counterparts for
reducing the scope of the MEADS Proof of Concept program, but
the partner governments did not agree to the Department's
proposals. The report noted that ``[a]ll three MEADS
Participants must reach unanimous agreement before the Proof of
Concept can be amended or the prime contract can be
terminated.''
The Department's report also noted that, ``[i]f Congress
does not appropriate FY 2013 funding, the U.S. DOD [Department
of Defense] would take the position that the FY 2012 funds
represent the U.S. DOD's final financial contribution under the
MOU. The U.S. DOD would also take the position that failure to
provide FY 2013 funding would not be a unilateral withdrawal
from the MOU, with reference to the MOU's provision subjecting
Participants' activities under the MOU `to the availability of
funds appropriated for such purposes.''' In January 2012,
Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics, Frank Kendall, informed his German and Italian
counterparts that, ``it is very unlikely that Congress will
authorize and appropriate any U.S. FY 2013 funds for MEADS.''
Given that the U.S. responsibility under the MEADS MOU is made
``subject to the availability of funds appropriated for the
purposes of carrying out MEADS activities,'' and that the
United States is not withdrawing unilaterally from the MOU, the
committee urges the Department to continue its efforts to reach
agreement with its German and Italian partners on a plan to
restructure the MEADS program further to reduce its scope,
using fiscal year 2012 funds as the final U.S. obligations for
the program.
Improved turbine engine program
The budget request included $72.3 million in PE 23744A for
the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP). The committee notes
that the fiscal year 2013 request assumed contract award for
engineering and manufacturing development would occur in fiscal
year 2012. The program is delayed, however, and contract award
is not anticipated until fiscal 2014. The committee recommends
a decrease of $54.0 million in PE 23744A for ITEP.
The committee also notes that the Army's ITEP strategy
includes dual vendor competitive development through milestone
C. The committee supports competition in technology development
and encourages the Army to take advantage of the capability and
interest of multiple helicopter engine developers through
competitive prototyping.
Air Force
Next generation aerial refueling aircraft
The budget request included $1,815.6 million to continue
development of the KC-46A, the next-generation aerial refueling
aircraft.
The program office received fiscal year 2010 and fiscal
year 2011 Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund (TRTF) funds in
fiscal year 2011 that provided $135.0 million more research,
development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) funding than the Air
Force believed it needed during that period. The Department of
the Air Force applied $47.9 million of the $135.0 million to
small business innovation research activities, leaving $87.1
million of the $135.0 million in excess fiscal year 2011
funding available to cover fiscal year 2012 activities. Since
Congress already provided full funding of the fiscal year 2012
requirement, the Department could apply $87.1 million in fiscal
year 2012 funds against fiscal year 2013 funding requirements.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $87.1
million in the budget request for the KC-46A EMD program.
Defense-wide
Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict Advanced Development and
Combatting Terrorism Technology Support
The budget request includes $77.1 million in PE 603122D8Z
for Combatting Terrorism Technology Support (CTTS) and $26.3
million in PE 603121 for Special Operations/Low Intensity
Conflict (SO/LIC) Advanced Development. The budget lines fund a
broad spectrum of technology development ranging from chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear countermeasures; to
explosives detection and improvised explosive device (IED)
defeat; to special reconnaissance capabilities; to decision,
planning, and analytical tools; to irregular warfare support--
all for various interagency customers.
The committee is concerned that a significant portion of
these activities appear to overlap or exist in a non-
coordinated fashion with activities under the Joint IED Defeat
Organization (JIEDDO), U.S. Special Operations Command
(USSOCOM), the military departments, and other Department of
Defense (DOD) agencies. Furthermore, it is not clear what
transition mechanisms are in place to ensure technologies
developed under these activities have an enduring impact on the
capabilities of the special operations or general purpose
forces.
The committee also notes that the new defense strategic
guidance highlights Counter Terrorism and Irregular Warfare (CT
& IW) as the first of 10 mission areas for the Joint Force. The
committee feels that of all the activities in these two budget
lines, the CT & IW area does not have significant funding in
other DOD organizations and hence is most appropriate for
funding in the CTTS and SO/LIC budget lines.
The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, in
coordination with the Commander of USSOCOM and the Director of
JIEDDO, to submit to the congressional defense committees not
later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, a report that:
(1) describes and assesses the effectiveness of the
coordination mechanisms in place to avoid duplication of
efforts funded by these two budget lines and other relevant
defense entities, including JIEDDO and USSOCOM; (2) outlines
the differences between technologies funded by the CTTS and SO/
LIC budget lines and other relevant defense entities, including
JIEDDO and SOCOM; (3) provides a listing of which technologies
have successfully transitioned to the services and USSOCOM; and
(4) describes how the CT & IW programs funded by SO/LIC fit
within the Department's broader CT & IW strategy.
Furthermore the committee recommends a decrease of $11.3
million from PE 603122D8Z for activities relating to counter-
IED activities, given that they appear to be duplicative of
activities conducted by JIEDDO.
Industrial base innovation fund
The budget request included $22.0 million in PE 603680D8Z
for defense-wide manufacturing science and technology. The
committee, along with other congressional defense committees,
has been a strong supporter of programs that sustain and
advance targeted sectors and capabilities of the defense
industrial base. A February 2006 report by the Defense Science
Board regarding the Department of Defense's Manufacturing
Technology Program points out that manufacturing technology
plays a critical role in addressing development, acquisition,
and sustainment problems associated with advanced weapons
programs and recommended increased funding in this area.
Furthermore, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review explicitly
stressed the importance of the defense industrial base and the
Department of Defense's new strategic guidance released in
January 2012, stated that the Department ``will make every
effort to maintain an adequate industrial base and our
investment in science and technology.'' In addition, the
administration recently announced the formation of a national
network of institutes for manufacturing innovation, which in
part, are planned to address Department of Defense mission
requirements.
The committee recommends an additional $30.0 million to
continue the Industrial Base Innovation Fund (IBIF) program in
the above 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, and the National Digital Engineering
and Manufacturing Consortium.
Furthermore, if the Department of Defense believes that the
IBIF is important to the sustainment of the industrial base,
then the Department should 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 on-going ``Sector-by-
Sector, Tier-by-Tier'' analyses.
Defense microelectronics strategy and Next Generation Foundry
The Senate report accompanying S. 1235 (S. Rept. 112-26) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
directed the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering to brief the congressional defense committees by
September 30, 2011, on a microelectronics strategy that would
address components including resilient advanced
microprocessors, application specific integrated circuits,
field programmable gate arrays, printed circuit boards,
photonics devices, and other related electronics components for
the next-generation of military and intelligence systems. The
committee notes that the promising field of photonics includes
research on devices, for example, lasers that are fully
monolithically integrated as interconnects on integrated
circuits. If successful, such devices could significantly
reduce the power consumption, weight, and cooling requirements
of networks for both terrestrial applications, as well as for
weapon systems. In addition, the committee understood this
strategy would also address the full spectrum of the supply
chain including design, mask development and inspection,
fabrication, packaging and assembly, and testing. However, the
committee has not received this strategy yet and is concerned
that the Department of Defense (DOD) is requesting $10.0
million in fiscal year 2013 for the development of a 90
nanometer (nm) Next Generation Foundry for the Defense
Microelectronics Activity without the context of this broader
strategy.
The committee fully appreciates the DOD's need to upgrade
its fabrication capabilities for microelectronics devices that
are obsolete and no longer produced by the commercial sector,
but are still required by its weapon systems. In addition, the
committee understands that developing this capability is at
least a 5 year endeavor and that if the Department delays,
there may be detrimental consequences in the out-years to the
warfighting readiness and capabilities of weapon systems that
rely upon outdated microelectronics devices.
However, the committee is not satisfied that a complete
life cycle cost estimate has been conducted that accounts for
the full costs of this upgrade, including whether workforce
training and/or expansion is required. The committee believes
that this comprehensive planning must be completed before
spending the full $10.0 million the initial year. Hence, the
committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 million to PE 603720S
for the 90 nm Next Generation Foundry budget request. In
addition, the committee recommends a fence on this funding that
is described elsewhere in this report.
Lastly, due to its ongoing oversight and concerns regarding
the security of the electronics supply chain, the committee
expects the defense microelectronics strategy to address
linkages to the broader policy guidance and regulations that
DOD is developing for two areas. One is related to ``Trusted
Systems and Networks'' that addresses both the needs for
procuring DOD-unique components for well-defined mission
critical systems from suppliers that are certified under
Defense Microelectronics Activity's Trusted Integrated Circuit
Suppliers program and the management of risk in the supply
chain for other integrated circuit-related products. The other
is related to combating counterfeit components and the need for
``Trustworthy Suppliers'' that adhere to DOD requirements and
established industry standards. The committee is expecting that
these new policies and regulations, under the umbrella of the
DOD's Program Protection process, will identify the steps that
the DOD will take to ensure that it will procure
microelectronic systems through trusted contractors and
subcontractors and that potential vulnerabilities due to non-
domestic foundries will be addressed. The committee directs the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to brief the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives on the status of these
policies no later than December 31, 2012.
Advanced sensor applications program
The budget request included $16.9 million for the Advanced
Sensor Applications Program (ASAP). This represents a reduction
from a level of $18.4 million in fiscal year 2012 and 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 other program 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 additional
$2.0 million for ASAP.
U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs
The budget request included $99.8 million in PE 63913C for
the Missile Defense Agency for United States-Israeli
cooperative missile defense programs, including: $10.7 million
to improve the existing Arrow Weapon System; $50.9 million for
continued development of the Arrow-3 upper-tier interceptor
missile, and $38.3 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 different 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 fired recently 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 missile threat to Israel
from ballistic missiles and rockets of varying ranges is
extremely serious and increasing, 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, including technical and schedule
risk reduction, 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 $100.0
million in PE 63193C for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile
defense programs, including: $20.0 million to improve the Arrow
Weapon System, $20.0 million for the Arrow-3 upper-tier
interceptor program, and $60.0 million for the David's Sling
weapon system. The committee expects that the Department of
Defense will continue its efforts to enhance the joint
management of these programs, including efforts to avoid
excessive concurrency.
The budget request included no funds for the Israeli Iron
Dome short-range rocket defense system. However, after the
budget submission the Department of Defense stated it would
seek additional funds from Congress for the United States to
provide to Israel to acquire additional Iron Dome short-range
rocket defense systems. The committee understands that the
fiscal year 2013 funding request will be for $210.0 million,
and recommends an additional increase of $210.0 million in PE
63913C for the Israeli Iron Dome system. A legislative
provision that would authorize this funding is described
elsewhere in this report. The committee is aware of reports
that the additional request for Iron Dome funding could be for
as much as $680.0 million over multiple fiscal years, and looks
forward to receiving the Department's request, and to
continuing its support for Israeli missile defense programs.
Department of Defense Corrosion Program shortfall
The budget request included $10.1 million for the
Department of Defense (DOD) Corrosion Program divided between
Operation and Maintenance and Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation (RDT&E). The DOD has consistently underfunded the
DOD Corrosion Program in fiscal years 2011, 2012, and now 2013.
The DOD Corrosion Program has identified to Congress a $41.5
million requirements shortfall in RDT&E funding.
The committee remains concerned that corrosion is costly
and can have negative effects on military equipment in terms of
cost, readiness, operator and maintenance burdens, and safety.
The DOD estimates that the negative effects of corrosion cost
approximately $23.0 billion in annual maintenance expenditures
for weapon systems and infrastructure.
The committee has recommended a provision that would amend
the DOD reporting requirements to Congress by requiring
additional information on corrosion projects, including
validated returns on investment for completed corrosion
projects, activities, and information on how corrosion funding
is used for military projects, the Technical Corrosion
Collaboration pilot program, and other corrosion-related
activities. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office
has stated that the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office
within the DOD Corrosion Program delivers at least a 14 to 1
ratio return on investment to the taxpayer through corrosion
project opportunities and activity requirements. Ensuring
proper corrosion prevention and control plays a major role in
the sustainment costs and life cycle range of many current and
future weapon systems including the F-22, F-35, and various
ground vehicles, ships, and aircraft.
The committee continues to urge the Secretary of Defense to
fully fund the corrosion control requirements in the fiscal
year 2014 base budget request.
In light of the committee requesting additional information
from the DOD Corrosion Program, the committee recommends an
increase of $20.8 million in RDT&E, line 099, Program Element
64016D8Z for the DOD Corrosion Program to address the
identified shortfall.
Defense research and development Rapid Innovation Program science and
technology thrust areas
The Defense Research and Development 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 $200.0 million was
appropriated for the RIP in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74); however, no funds
were requested in fiscal year 2013. While the RIP is still new
and the committee has yet to see the results of the first round
of projects funded by fiscal year 2011 funds, there is clearly
strong service support because of the overwhelming response
from industry--especially small businesses--providing new
innovative technologies and opening up more collaborative
opportunities with a broader base of small businesses and non-
traditional suppliers to the DOD.
The committee understands that the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering will soon be conducting a
review of the fiscal year 2011 projects to assess the value of
continuing the RIP. If the review validates the program, then
the Department should integrate it into its future annual
budget requests.
The committee recommends an increase of $200.0 million in
funding for the RIP to PE 604775D8Z, and suggests an emphasis
on the following areas:
1. Enhancing energy security and independence. For
increased investment in technologies that will improve
energy efficiency, enhance energy security, and reduce
the Department's dependence on fossil fuels through
advances in traditional and alternative energy storage,
power systems, renewable energy production and more
energy efficient ground, air, and naval systems. The
committee notes that the Department of Defense remains
critically dependent upon energy for both its far-flung
infrastructure, and for its global military operations.
The Department currently consumes as much energy as
two-thirds of all the world's nations. Improved energy
efficiency in remote areas such as Afghanistan can
reduce the dependence of our armed forces on fragile
fuel supply lines that are vulnerable to enemy attack,
and thus can help save lives;
2. Developing, utilizing, and maintaining advanced
materials. For increased investment in a broad range of
materials technologies that can provide: enhanced
performance in extreme environments; improved strength
and reduced weight for the spectrum of applications
ranging from aerospace to lighter soldier loads;
greater survivability of ground, air, and naval
systems; and reduced life cycle costs through better
maintainability for a wide variety of the challenging
environments and unique properties demanded of military
systems. Such materials could include advanced
composites and metals, nanomaterials, and rare-earth
alternatives. Whether increasing survivability,
improving fuel efficiency for greater performance, or
decreasing maintenance costs, advanced materials are a
foundational enabling component of military systems
across all services and all warfighting domains;
3. Improving manufacturing technologies and
capabilities. For increased investment in advanced and
innovative manufacturing technologies across the
spectrum of applications to significantly compress
design to production time cycles, reduce cost, minimize
waste and energy consumption, and improve product
quality and reliability. Historically, the Department
has heavily invested in the technologies to improve the
performance of military systems, but not in the
processes to reduce the costs of the production of
those military systems. Numerous high-level studies
have stressed the benefits of advancing the state of
manufacturing technologies--whether for a ship hull or
a radiation-hardened chip--for long-term savings and
the need to capitalize on the latest innovations in
manufacturing processes for defense systems. Projects
in this area should be coordinated with the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and
Industrial Base Policy to ensure that investments are
guided, in part, by shortfalls identified in industrial
base analyses such as the ongoing ``Sector by Sector,
Tier by Tier'' study effort;
4. Advancing microelectronics. For increased
investment in the development of resilient advanced
microprocessors, application-specific integrated
circuits, field programmable gate arrays, printed
circuit boards, photonics devices, and other related
electronics components for the next-generation of
military and intelligence systems. Similar to advanced
materials, advanced microelectronics are a cross-
cutting enabler across all military systems. Given that
the majority of costs of most advanced weapons
platforms are in electronics and supporting software,
investments in this area to improve processing
capacity, decrease weight and power requirements, and
increase resiliency should have high payoff; and
5. Developing cybersecurity tools. For increased
investment in areas such as internet and network
mapping capabilities, software reverse engineering and
vulnerability analysis, network data collection and
analysis, new innovative defensive techniques against
cyber attacks--especially in virtual environments, and
integrated cloud security capabilities. The security of
DOD's war fighting and business networks, as well as
the networks of the defense industrial base is a
serious concern. DOD needs access to the latest
innovative technologies in this field in order to stay
ahead of rapidly growing and evolving threats in
cyberspace.
Funding authorized for the RIP may be used to augment
existing research and development efforts or initiate new
projects. As provided in section 1073, the Secretary of Defense
may transfer funds available for the RIP to the research,
development, test, and evaluation accounts of a military
department, defense agency, or the unified combatant command
for special operations forces pursuant to a proposal, or any
part of a proposal, that the Secretary determines would
directly support the purposes of the program. All such funding
is required by law to be allocated on the basis of a merit-
based selection, pursuant to a broad agency announcement or
similar competitive process.
General fund enterprise business systems realignment
The budget request included $9.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), for General Fund
Enterprise Business System (GFEBS).
The committee has received a request from the Army to
realign $17.2 million into GFEBS to support the engineering
development effort necessary to process classified and
sensitive transactions and to mitigate the risk of exposing
classified information.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $17.2
million in RDT&E for GFEBS realignment.
Developmental test and evaluation
The budget request included $15.1 million in PE 605804D8Z
for developmental test and evaluation, which was a decrease of
about $0.7 million from the fiscal year 2012 budget request,
and about $4.2 million below the fiscal year 2012 appropriation
of $19.3 million.
The committee notes the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) required the Department of
Defense to rebuild its systems engineering and developmental
testing organizations to ensure that design problems are
understood and addressed early in the acquisition process.
While the Department has taken great strides in improving
its acquisition process, the committee notes that the Fiscal
Year 2011 Annual Report by the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation--dated December 2011--provided a list of 17 major
defense acquisition programs 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 2012, the committee recommended an
increase of $5.0 million to developmental test and evaluation.
The committee believes the Department 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. Hence, the
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in the above
program element line.
Shallow Water Combat Submersible Program
The budget request includes $8.9 million in PE 1160483BB
for the continued development of the Shallow Water Combat
Submersible. The committee understands that the contractor's
failure to meet systems engineering requirements will result in
an overall program delay of several months and require at least
an additional $8.0 million to complete research and development
activities. According to U.S. Special Operations Command
(USSOCOM), ``extreme schedule variations from the baseline
resulted in the inability to accurately track progress and
cost.'' At the request of USSOCOM, the committee recommends a
transfer of $8.0 million from Procurement, Defense-wide, to
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for
cost growth in the engineering and manufacturing development
phase of the program.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs
The budget request included $2.8 billion for the research
and management activities of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA). While DARPA's fiscal performance has
notably improved, the committee is still concerned about the
timeliness of sustained funding execution. The committee
recommends a reduction of $100.0 million from DARPA's overall
budget to reflect continuing concerns about timely and
effective execution of funds by the agency, as well as concerns
about specific programs.
DARPA is pursuing a broad range of manufacturing-related
programs with over $500.0 million planned over the future-years
defense program. The committee continues to support DARPA's
efforts to revolutionize manufacturing technologies and
methods. However, DARPA's transition plans for these programs
are not clear. One of the metrics of success to DARPA's efforts
in this area will be when the defense industrial base (as well
as the broader national industrial base) incorporates new
innovative manufacturing technologies and methods that will
focus on increasing affordability and decreasing timelines. In
order to accomplish this goal, DARPA needs to work more closely
with the Services' Manufacturing Technology programs and the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and
Industrial Base Policy and its research and development
activities tied to new national manufacturing initiatives such
as the Advanced Manufacturing Program. In addition, DARPA needs
to work with the appropriate entities within the Department in
considering the legal and policy implications to open-source
manufacturing such as trusted supply chains, export controls
and intellectual property issues.
The Fast, Adaptable, Next-Generation Ground Combat Vehicle
is a program where model-based design tools and highly
adaptable foundry-style manufacturing techniques are being
explored with respect to combat vehicle design and production.
The committee continues to be concerned that force protection
and related armor technologies, which are an integral component
of any ground combat vehicle, are not adequately being
addressed in conjunction with the Army.
Hence, the committee directs DARPA to commission a review
of its Adaptive Vehicle Make (AVM) umbrella program by an
external review panel and submit the results of this review to
the congressional defense committees 90 days after the
enactment of this Act. The review should assess DARPA's
transition plans for the AVM program and how well potential
policy and legal issues are being addressed.
The committee is strongly disappointed in DARPA's report to
the congressional defense committees requested in the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383) on the transition plan for the National
Cyber Range (NCR) that identified U.S. Cyber Command as the
transition partner. Given that U.S. Cyber Command has not
agreed to be the transition partner, and given that this
facility and technology represents at least a $116.0 million
investment through fiscal year 2011, the committee recommends
increasing PE 605118OTE by $4.0 million and directs the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to continue testing
the NCR with the broad cyber community in fiscal year 2013
until a final plan is developed for the NCR by the Department
of Defense.
Items of Special Interest
Adaptive engine technology development program
The committee notes the Air Force budget request for fiscal
year 2013 includes $214.0 million for the Adaptive Engine
Technology Development (AETD) program. The Air Force has
explained that this engine technology program has the potential
to achieve a 25 percent reduction in cruise specific fuel
consumption compared to existing state-of-the art engines such
as the F135 engine. This fuel efficiency goal was set by the
National Aeronautics Research and Development Plan of 2010 that
provides overarching research goals and objectives to the
interagency aeronautics research and development community, of
which the Department of Defense is a key member. Such
aggressive fuel consumption reduction goals are driven by the
need to reduce overall fuel costs in military operations, as
well as to make significant improvements to unrefueled aircraft
range and time-on-station.
The committee supports the Air Force Research Lab's (AFRL)
efforts to pursue increased fuel efficiency and support the
military aircraft engine industrial base through science and
technology (S&T) programs including AETD. The committee's
support for AETD is based on two understandings. First, the
committee understands that AFRL will award up to two contracts
for the AETD program through a fully open and competitive
process that will not unduly advantage competitors who
performed for the predecessor Adaptive Versatile Engine
Technology program, nor disadvantage competitors performing for
other military aircraft engine research or production programs.
Second, the committee has received assurances in testimony
from the Air Force that AETD is purely a technology maturation
program and is not a new ``alternate engine'' program for the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The committee notes that further
development of the alternate engine for the F-35 is prohibited
under current law, and expects the Air Force to abide by the
letter and the spirit of this law.
The committee notes that it will review annually the
progress of the AETD program during the course of its annual
reviews of the Air Force's S&T programs.
Air Force cyber and information technology research
The fiscal year 2013 Air Force budget request included
$136.0 million for research and development in PE 602788F
(Dominant Information Technology) and PE 603788F (Global
Information Dev/Demo) for a broad spectrum of activities in
cyber science and technology (S&T); autonomy, command and
control, and decision support; connectivity and dissemination;
and processing and exploitation technologies. The committee
notes that these investment areas are consistent with the Air
Force's Technology Horizons S&T plans, as well as with elements
of the Department of Defense's overarching S&T priority areas.
However, the committee notes that this investment level is a
reduction of almost 20 percent compared to the fiscal year 2012
funding levels, and that funding is projected to increase again
in the fiscal year 2014-2017 time frame. The committee
understands that the fiscal year 2013 decrease in funding in
these areas is due to a ``strategic pause'' that the Air Force
is taking to develop an investment plan for its activities.
However, given the strategic importance of these technology
areas--as identified in the new defense strategic guidance
issued in January 2012, the committee is concerned about this
significant drop in funding that would impact cyber-related
research and development (R&D).
Hence, the committee directs the Air Force to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees detailing its
investment strategy for these technology areas outlined above
within 180 days after the enactment of this Act. The report
should, at a minimum: 1) identify the Air Force's near-, mid-,
and far-term S&T priorities for cyber and information-related
technologies and the resources--both in funding and personnel--
projected to address these priorities; 2) lay out a transition
strategy for the results of these S&T efforts into weapon
systems, including cyber tools; 3) address how the Air Force
will recruit, train, and retain a highly skilled workforce in
these areas; and 4) address laboratory infrastructure and
research facilities necessary for the accomplishment of this
R&D.
Air Force space developmental test and evaluation
In the Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems
Engineering FY 2011 Annual Report to Congress, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Developmental Test
and Evaluation (DT&E) stated that the Air Force Space Community
should ``grow their Developmental Test and Evaluation workforce
and training in order for it to provide a robust government
DT&E capability.''
The committee notes that while the Air Force has an
operational test and evaluation organization, it does not have
a developmental test and evaluation organization for space
systems similar to what it has for its aeronautical systems.
Hence the committee directs the Air Force to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees by December 31,
2012, on how it currently accomplishes its developmental test
and evaluation activities for its space systems, the
effectiveness of the current construct, and a plan for how they
are responding to the above observation made by the DASD for
DT&E.
Applied mathematics and computational science
The committee recognizes the important role that applied
mathematics and computational science play in support of
current Department of Defense (DOD) activities, including
modeling and simulation, high performance computing, and large-
scale data analysis. In addition, the committee acknowledges
the foundational impact of applied mathematics and
computational science on some of the DOD's science and
technology (S&T) emphasis areas, such as autonomy, cyber
sciences, and data-to-decisions.
However, the committee is aware of some concerns about the
lack of a robust interaction between DOD laboratories and
weapons centers and the academic research community in the
fields of applied mathematics and computational science. The
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
(ASDR&E) held a workshop on mathematics in January 2012, and a
workshop on computer science in May 2011, that addressed
leading areas of mathematics and computer science research from
a disciplinary perspective. However, what is needed is a better
understanding on how advances in the applied mathematics and
computational sciences communities can assist in addressing the
fundamental mathematical challenges underpinning some of the
DOD S&T emphasis areas referenced above. For instance, DOD
needs to ensure that advances and challenges identified in
these workshops in areas of information science, mathematical
modeling, human-machine interactions, and robotics will enable
advances in the DOD's S&T emphasis area of autonomy.
Hence, the committee urges the ASDR&E and the service S&T
executives to ensure that the DOD robustly engages with the
academic mathematics and computational science communities to
leverage their expertise. The committee believes that more
active engagement will enable the contributions of these
communities to assist progress in the DOD's S&T emphasis areas
that will ultimately lead to the next-generation of warfighting
capabilities and technologies.
Army manned airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
platforms
The budget request included $47.4 million in PE 65626A to
complete four Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD)
phase Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance
System (EMARSS) aircraft. The committee understands that the
Army plans to take delivery of these EMD phase EMARSS aircraft,
conduct a utility assessment of them and then field them into
the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) Aerial
Exploitation Battalions (AEB). Once these EMARSS aircraft reach
the INSCOM AEBs, they will join a vastly heterogeneous fleet of
aging programs of records--such as the Guardrail and Airborne
Reconnaissance Low aircraft--and various quick-reaction
capability (QRC) platforms.
The Army requested the funding for these aircraft despite
the fact that there is no procurement funding in the future-
years defense program to purchase any more EMARSS aircraft.
Moreover, the Army asked to complete and retain these aircraft
despite the fact that this committee signaled its clear
intent--both through cuts to the EMARSS program and through
report language on the MC-12W Project Liberty program in the
Senate report accompanying S. 1235 (S. Rept. 112-26), the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012--that
the committee would not support procuring a second, separate
fleet of C-12-based manned airborne intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms.
The committee does not recommend denying the requested
funds, in part because the Air Force was allowed to send the
Liberty fleet to Air National Guard units and to man those
units to support the deployment of enough aircraft to sustain
only two combat air patrols, which are expected to be allocated
to Special Operations Command support. The committee also
believes that the new Army G-2 needs time to assess all of the
airborne ISR programs and assets that the Army has accumulated
and to chart a course looking ahead to the drawdown in
Afghanistan.
At the same time, the committee emphasizes its growing
concerns about the state of the Army's manned airborne ISR
portfolio. The wide mixture of manned airborne ISR platforms
and sensors described above reflects the adaptation of Army
Military Intelligence to the dynamic demands of the battlefield
after 11 years of war. With soldiers gradually returning from
the battlefield and with mounting pressure to decrease defense
spending, now is the time for the Army to rationalize this
fleet rather than to keep adding to it with low numbers of
diverse aircraft.
The committee directs the Army G-2, the Army G-8, and the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology to develop a plan for Army manned airborne ISR
platforms. This plan should address the following questions:
What requirements for manned airborne ISR
support to Army general purpose forces can be met with
shared assets from other services;
What requirements for manned airborne ISR
support to Army general purpose forces need to be met
organically;
Given the set of requirements that need to
be met organically, what existing QRC systems need to
become programs of record;
Which current programs of record need to be
modernized or eliminated; and
How will the Army resource these platform
choices?
The committee directs the Army to provide this plan to the
congressional defense and intelligence committees in
conjunction with the submission of the budget request for
fiscal year 2014. The committee expects the Army to consult
with the committee as this plan is crafted. If requirements
change or if assumptions about the level of support available
from other services change, the committee would like to be kept
apprised.
Army robotics
The committee notes that ground robotic vehicles have saved
many lives in the fight against improvised explosive devices
(IED) and other efforts are underway to use ground robotics to
accomplish ``dirty, dull, and dangerous'' tasks, including the
transport of equipment and supplies, that will make our troops
more safe and effective. Leading the research effort in ground
robotics and autonomous control systems is the Army's Tank and
Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center working
collaboratively with industry and academia, as well as the Army
Research Laboratory with the Robotics Collaborative Technology
Alliance. The Army also works closely with the Robotic Systems
Joint Project Office that is dedicated to continuous
improvement of unmanned system capabilities to meet current and
future joint military requirements.
The committee believes that Army investments in the
development of new ground robotics technologies to date are
inadequate and lack focus. The Senate report accompanying S.
1235 (S. Rept. 112-26) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 highlighted the importance of robotic
ground vehicle technologies and acknowledged that the Army
leadership was in the process of determining operational and
technical requirements for ground robotics vehicles that will
guide the development of a long-term research, development, and
acquisition strategy. The committee understood that this
strategy would be developed by the end of 2011 and used to
guide Army research and development investments in robotic
ground vehicles in fiscal year 2013 and beyond. However, the
Army has not yet produced this strategy.
The committee understands that recent Army strategic
planning efforts on ground robotic vehicles have resulted in
the development of an Unmanned Systems (Air, Ground, Maritime)
Initial Capabilities Document that is approved by both the Army
and Marine Corps, and is awaiting approval by the Joint Staff.
Furthermore, the committee understands that the multi-service
Joint Ground Robotics Integration Team, established by the
Army's Maneuver Center of Excellence, is developing an Unmanned
Ground Systems (UGS) Campaign Plan for the Army. It is expected
that this campaign plan will provide the Army with the unity of
effort across the unmanned enterprise including science and
technology; experimentation, test and evaluation, and safety;
development and fielding; training and sustainment; and
deployment and employment. The committee believes this
integrated effort is crucial to address not only technical
challenges, but the more important policy and operational
concepts issues that will ultimately inform the Army's
investment plans in this area. Ultimately, the goal of this UGS
Campaign Plan should be an affordably modernized force that
fully integrates manned and unmanned teaming capabilities with
improved persistence, protection, endurance, and autonomy.
The committee expects the Army to complete and approve this
UGS Campaign Plan in 2012, and to be briefed no later than
December 31, 2012.
Ballistic missile defense overview
The budget request included $9.7 billion for missile
defense, including $7.8 billion for the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) and $1.9 billion for Army and related missile defense
programs.
In the area of homeland defense, 30 Ground-Based
Interceptors (GBI) have been deployed in Alaska and California
as part of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, and
are providing protection of the United States from the possible
future threat of limited ballistic missile attack from nations
such as North Korea and Iran. As outlined in the February 2010
Ballistic Missile Defense Review, the Department of Defense has
a program to improve the reliability and performance of the GMD
system. The GBI reliability program is intended to double the
number of threat intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM)
that the current GMD system could defeat, without adding any
GBIs--thus effectively doubling the capability of the existing
GMD system.
In December 2011, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) awarded
the GMD development and sustainment contract. Its cost was
roughly $1.0 billion below the government cost estimate. This
cost reduction resulted from competition, and permitted a
reduction in the negotiated price of GBIs from about $75.0
million to about $53.0 million each. One benefit of the new GMD
contract is the inclusion of a defects clause that holds the
contractor accountable for quality failures, and would require
the contractor--not the taxpayer--to pay the costs of defective
work. The committee commends MDA for achieving such substantial
cost reduction and contractor accountability, and encourages
MDA to pursue similar benefits in future contracts through
competition.
In the budget request, the Missile Defense Agency is
requesting an additional five GBIs as test and spare missiles.
These additional interceptors would provide several benefits
that would: 1) allow a more robust test and evaluation program;
2) allow the operational deployment of eight additional GBIs in
spare silos at Missile Field-2 at Fort Greely, Alaska, if
needed to meet a potential expansion of future threats from
North Korea or Iran; and 3) keep the GBI production line warm
into fiscal year 2018, thus permitting future procurement of
additional GBIs, if needed.
As a result of a GMD flight test failure in December 2010,
MDA's highest priority is to correct the problem that caused
the failure and to demonstrate the correction in two flight
tests prior to resuming production or refurbishment of the
newest model of exo-atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) that
failed--the Capability Enhancement-II model. This plan is
consistent with the committee's position, and the committee
commends MDA for its rigorous and disciplined approach to
demonstrating that the new kill vehicle will work as intended
before resuming production. As part of this approach, MDA is
requiring the EKV contractors to meet more rigorous
manufacturing and production quality standards, which has
delayed the two planned flight tests several months. The
committee believes it is important to take such prudent steps
to improve quality and increase confidence in the system.
The committee notes that the Integrated Master Test Plan
for missile defense includes a series of planned GMD tests
through 2022, including salvo testing, multiple simultaneous
engagement testing, and operational testing. These tests are
planned at a rate of roughly one test per year, which the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation testified is the
best rate that has been achievable over the last decade. The
Director of MDA testified that ``conducting flight tests at a
pace greater than once a year prohibits thorough analysis of
pre-mission and post-mission flight test data and causes
greater risk of further failure and setbacks to developing our
homeland defense capability as rapidly as possible.''
In addition to its plans and programs to improve the
reliability and performance of the GMD system, the Department
is also pursuing a strategy to hedge against the possibility
that the future ICBM threat from North Korea or Iran could
emerge faster or in greater numbers than anticipated. Under
this homeland defense hedging strategy, the Department has
already made or implemented a number of decisions to improve
the missile defense posture of the United States. For example,
the Department has completed the construction of eight extra
GBI silos at Missile Field 2 at Fort Greely, Alaska, which
would permit the deployment of eight additional GBIs if needed
to cope with a future emerging threat. The Department is
evaluating the evolving threat and considering other potential
hedging options, such as the advisability, feasibility, and
affordability of deploying additional GBIs in the future,
either in Alaska or possibly on the East Coast. The committee
recommends a provision that would require the Department to
report on these homeland defense activities, as described
elsewhere in this report. The committee notes that section 233
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) required a report on the homeland defense
hedging policy and strategy that was due in March, but which
the Department has not yet submitted. The committee understands
that the review process has taken much longer than originally
planned, and is still continuing. However, the committee still
expects the Department to provide the report as soon as it is
finished, and to provide an interim report in case of any
significant anticipated delay.
The committee notes that the threat of regional missiles,
particularly short- and medium-range missiles from Iran and
North Korea, is serious and growing. These missiles pose a
significant risk to forward-deployed U.S. forces, allies, and
partners in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. The Department
has an obligation to provide force protection to U.S. forces
against ballistic missiles deployed in these regions, as well
as to meet our security commitments to our allies. To meet
these needs, the Department is pursuing a Phased Adaptive
Approach (PAA) to regional missile defense, tailored to each
region.
In 2011, the Department completed the deployment of Phase 1
of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to missile
defense, which is intended to defend our deployed forces and
allies against Iranian missiles. This included: the deployment
of an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) ship in the eastern
Mediterranean Sea, equipped with Standard Missile-3 (SM-3)
Block IA interceptors; the deployment of an AN/TPY-2 X-band
missile defense radar in Turkey; and establishment of a command
and control facility in Germany.
During 2011, the administration also completed negotiations
on all the bilateral agreements required to implement all four
phases of the EPAA, including: agreements with Romania and
Poland for the deployment of Aegis Ashore systems on their
territory; an agreement with Turkey to deploy the AN/TPY-2
radar on its territory; and an agreement with Spain to permit
the forward stationing of four Aegis BMD ships at Rota.
The core capability of the EPAA will be the Aegis BMD
system, both at sea and on land, with four increasingly capable
variants of the SM-3 interceptor missile, the SM-3 Blocks IA,
IB, IIA and IIB. As indicated previously, the committee
strongly supports the development, testing, production, and
deployment of operationally effective Aegis BMD and SM-3
capabilities in sufficient numbers to support the needs of the
regional combatant commanders to implement the PAA in Europe
and other regions, and to help protect the Homeland.
In April 2011, an Aegis BMD ship with an SM-3 IA
interceptor, using sensor information from a forward-deployed
AN/TPY-2 radar like the one now deployed in Turkey,
successfully intercepted an intermediate-range ballistic
missile target during a flight test. This was a demonstration
of the EPAA Phase 1 capability.
In September 2011, the first flight test of the SM-3 Block
IB interceptor failed to intercept the target. The MDA has
analyzed the problem, and conducted a repeat test on May 10,
2012, which successfully intercepted the target, to demonstrate
the problem has been resolved. The September flight test
failure caused a delay in the planned initial procurement of
SM-3 IB missiles, and MDA plans to procure additional SM-3 IA
missiles to meet the needs of combatant commanders for
additional interceptor inventory. Prior to a full production
decision for SM-3 IB, MDA would need to demonstrate success in
five planned flight tests, three in 2012 and two more in 2013.
The SM-3 IB is intended for deployment in Phase 2 of the EPAA
in the 2015 timeframe, both at sea and at an Aegis Ashore site
in Romania.
Phase 3 of the EPAA is planned for deployment in the 2018
timeframe, and will include the SM-3 IIA interceptor at sea and
at Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania. The SM-3 IIA is
being co-developed with Japan, which will also deploy the
missile on its Kongo-class Aegis BMD ships. During 2011, MDA
completed the preliminary design review and extended the
development phase of the SM-3 IIA with Japan to reduce
technical and schedule risk. The first flight test (non-
intercept) of the SM-3 IIA is planned for fiscal year 2014, and
nine more tests are planned before the Phase 3 deployment.
Phase 3 is designed to provide a robust defense against Iranian
intermediate-range missiles.
The last planned variant of the SM-3 missile is the Block
IIB, which is intended for deployment in Phase 4 of the EPAA in
the 2021 timeframe. The SM-3 IIB is intended to defend against
possible future long-range Iranian missiles that could reach
the United States. This system would augment the GMD system for
homeland defense and would provide an early intercept
capability that could permit a ``shoot-look-shoot'' option to
permit GBIs being held in reserve. The committee believes it is
important to develop a second type of interceptor system to
defend the Homeland, in addition to the GBI system. By pursuing
a competitive approach to the concept development phase, MDA
has engaged the significant engineering and design talent of
the industrial base. The committee believes it is important to
maintain this competitive approach, particularly since it could
produce the most innovative, cost-effective, and operationally
effective results.
The budget request for the Missile Defense Agency would
reduce the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system
from a planned procurement of nine batteries to six batteries
in the future-years defense program (FYDP), and the number of
THAAD interceptors was reduced correspondingly by 122 compared
to the plan presented in the fiscal year 2012 budget request.
Given that the combatant commander interest in THAAD remains
undiminished, the committee is disappointed to see these
planned reductions to the THAAD system. In testimony to the
committee, LTG Richard Formica, the Commander of U.S. Army
Space and Missile Defense Command, and Commander of the Joint
Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense,
explained that the choice of how many THAAD batteries to
procure in the FYDP came down to considering the missile
defense ``priority between investing in the Homeland and
investing in the region.'' However, the committee understands
that the Department plans to continue THAAD production beyond
the FYDP, including plans to maintain a procurement objective
of 503 missiles.
Previous difficulties with the THAAD production line have
delayed the program, and resulted in slower production than
planned. These production rate issues appear to be close to
resolution. The committee notes that the THAAD production line
will remain open through fiscal year 2017, including the
production of two THAAD batteries for the United Arab Emirates,
and will be capable of producing additional THAAD systems in
the future. The committee encourages the Department to explore
options to restore THAAD production to higher levels in the
future. Furthermore, the committee recommends an increase of
$100.0 million for additional procurement of THAAD
interceptors, as described elsewhere in this report.
In October 2011, the THAAD system conducted a successful
initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) flight test,
intercepting two targets nearly simultaneously. This test,
using the operational THAAD soldiers, represented operationally
realistic conditions with fielded equipment. Based on lessons
learned from this test, MDA decided to add a new flight test in
2012 to gain experience with THAAD and debris mitigation in a
flight test to integrate THAAD with Aegis BMD, and Patriot all
operating simultaneously. This will take place prior to the
first operational test involving THAAD, Aegis BMD, and Patriot
PAC-3 defending against five separate targets in flight. The
committee believes this integration flight test, described by
the Director of MDA as the ``largest, most complex missile
defense ever attempted,'' is a useful risk mitigation step
before the first multi-system operational test in 2013.
In testimony to the committee in April 2012, the Director
of MDA stated that the ``greatest future enhancement for both
homeland and regional missile defense in the next 10 years is
the development of the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS)
satellites, which will provide fire control quality track data
of raids of hostile ballistic missiles over their entire flight
trajectories. . .''. He also noted that ``the need for
persistent, full trajectory, tracking of ballistic missiles is
one of the war-fighter's highest development priorities as
stated in the 2012 STRATCOM PCL [U.S. Strategic Command's
Prioritized Capabilities List].''
In 2011, the Missile Defense Executive Board, the
Department's acquisition oversight body for missile defense,
directed U.S. Strategic Command to conduct an assessment of the
cost and performance of the three alternative remote missile
defense sensor systems--including PTSS, the Airborne Infrared
system, and forward-based AN/TPY-2 radars--to make
recommendations for the fiscal year 2013 budget request.
Strategic Command's recommendations are reflected in the budget
request, which includes $276.3 million to continue development
of PTSS, ends the Airborne Infrared program as a program of
record (Congress appropriated no funds for it in fiscal year
2012), and would stop procurement of forward-based AN/TPY-2
radars at five, rather than nine. This assessment, based on
operational considerations, had participation from the
geographic combatant commands, the Joint Staff, Air Force Space
Command, the Joint Functional Component Commands under U.S.
Strategic Command, the DOD Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation
(CAPE) office, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. In addition, the
DOD CAPE is currently performing an Independent Cost Estimate
and technical evaluation of PTSS that is due in October 2012.
In June 2011, the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff wrote to the committee that, ``the Joint Staff supports
PTSS as the most cost effective future sensor providing assured
access and persistent tracking coverage in an integrated
Ballistic Missile Defense Architecture.'' He also noted that he
fully concurred with the assessment of the Joint Functional
Component Commander for Integrated Missile Defense for U.S.
Strategic command that ``PTSS would provide a capability that
increases our forces' ability to defend against larger raids
and would reduce our reliance on terrestrial based radar
systems and airborne sensor platforms that require overseas
basing agreements.''
Given the strong military support for PTSS as the most
cost-effective means of providing persistent tracking and
targeting of ballistic missiles for homeland and regional
missile defense, and its expected operational benefits, the
committee supports continuing with development of PTSS as a
high priority program.
Cyber research, development, test, and evaluation, and training
infrastructure
The Department of Defense's new strategic guidance
emphasizes the importance of operating effectively in
cyberspace and states that the United States will ``invest in
advanced capabilities to defend its networks, operational
capability, and resiliency in cyberspace''. To the Department's
credit, cyber was one of the few areas where the DOD increased
its investments in both defensive and offensive capabilities.
Developing and testing these cyber capabilities and
training personnel effectively for cyber operations requires a
cyber infrastructure that can be used by the research
community, the acquisition community for development and
testing (both developmental and operational), and the
operational community for training, exercises, and rehearsals.
While this infrastructure is necessary for all these missions,
it is typically referred to as ``cyber test and evaluation
(T&E) infrastructure'', or simply ``cyber ranges''.
Despite the importance of this cyber T&E infrastructure,
comprehensive oversight and strategic planning for long-term
funding, personnel plans, and modernization investments do not
exist. There is a significant disconnect between the DOD's
policy statements to increase cyber operations and security,
and its lack of attention to its cyber ranges. The last few
years have seen a decline in the funding and the personnel
attached to a number of key DOD-wide cyber ranges--while the
demand for more rigorous testing and training has increased.
Currently, there are a number of cyber ranges either in
operation or still undergoing development that could be
considered ``national assets'' due to their scope and
capabilities, and that could be components of a broader
federated cyber range infrastructure for the DOD.
The National Cyber Range (NCR) was developed by the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) with the goal of
creating a secure, self-contained facility that could rapidly
emulate complex defense and commercial networks, allowing for
the cost-effective and timely validation of cyber technologies.
The NCR is currently in a 1 year beta operation phase and is in
the process of securing Sensitive Compartmented Information
security accreditation. In a letter to the committee in June
2011, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics stated that the NCR would transition
to U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), but CYBERCOM has not agreed
to this plan, and there are no funds requested for CYBERCOM to
operate and support the range. Hence the future of the NCR, an
investment of $116.0 million through fiscal year 2011, is
unknown. The fiscal year 2013 budget request contains only $1.8
million for DARPA to close out the contract.
The Joint Information Operations Range (JIOR) is a nation-
wide network of 68 nodes for live, virtual, and constructive
operations across the full spectrum of security
classifications. Originally operated by the Joint Forces
Command (JFCOM), it was transferred to the Joint Staff in
fiscal year 2011. However, funding and personnel are being
reduced. Only 39 research, development, test, and evaluation
and training events are planned for fiscal year 2012 compared
to 60 events that were conducted in fiscal year 2011.
The DOD Cyber/Defense Information Systems Agency
Information Assurance Range is an operationally realistic
environment for emulating the Global Information Grid
Information Assurance/Computer Network Defense capabilities
that is used for research and development, test and evaluation,
and training. Funding and personnel are relatively constant
over the out-years, but the number of RDT&E and training events
planned at this range is also declining.
In addition, U.S. Cyber Command has developed a virtual
training environment for the DOD annual Cyber Flag exercise
that has the potential to be integrated with other environments
and ranges. This range supports training operations involving
friendly, neutral, and adversarial participants, and is
instrumented for situational awareness and training
assessments.
Lastly, there is the potential to broaden the scope of uses
of the Joint Systems Integration Center/Joint System
Integration and Interoperability Lab that was formerly under
JFCOM and now under the Joint Staff. While the current focus of
this range is to replicate operational command and control
networks and assess system interoperability, its capabilities
could be used for broader information assurance assessments and
activities, including direct linkage to the JIOR.
Recently, through prompting, the Department has recognized
the need to take a more strategic view of its cyber ranges. In
a report to Congress requested in section 933 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), Report on Acquisition and Oversight of Department of
Defense Cyberspace Operations Capabilities, the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics stated
that the Department's Cyber Investment Management Board has
directed the Director of the Test Resources Management Center
and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to develop
an enterprise roadmap for cyber T&E infrastructure
capabilities. Furthermore, the committee is awaiting a brief on
the Department's analysis of T&E resources needed to address
the capability gaps outlined by the ``2010 Test and Evaluation
Strategic Plan''--a reporting requirement from the House report
accompanying H.R. 1540 (H. Rpt. 112-78) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
However, these activities have not yet addressed the key
issue of centralized oversight and management of these or
potentially new cyber ranges. While the committee sees the
management of cyber ranges as a natural extension of the
Department's oversight of the Major Range and Test Facilities
Base through the Test Resources Management Center, the
committee believes that the Department should conduct its own
evaluation. Hence, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, working with the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, and the Director
of the Test Resources Management Center to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees 180 days after the
enactment of this Act on the determination of an entity within
the Department that will have oversight of the cyber T&E range
infrastructure, funding and personnel.
In addition to identifying the management structure for the
cyber ranges, this report shall identify the entities (e.g.,
such as executive agents) that will provide funding and
resources for the operation and modernization of the ranges, as
well as the mechanisms for the allocation of range resources to
range users. The committee expects that future budget requests
will not simply arrest but reverse the decline in funding and
activities at the Department's cyber ranges, commensurate with
the importance that the Department attaches to the cyber
mission.
Department of Defense labs workforce and infrastructure
As a key element of the Department of Defense's (DOD's)
roughly $12.0 billion per year science and technology
portfolio, its laboratories contribute to a broad range of
science and technology activities, ranging from conducting
Nobel-prize winning basic research to rapidly developing and
fielding capabilities for the warfighter. The lab enterprise
includes 62 organizations spread across 22 states with a total
workforce of about 60,000 employees, more than half of whom are
degreed scientists and engineers. In certain critical national
security-related areas, these organizations--and more
importantly, the highly skilled scientists, engineers and
technicians in them--are national assets.
The committee understands that among the numerous
challenges facing the DOD lab enterprise, two key issues
require focused and sustained attention:
(a) recruiting and retaining the best and brightest
scientists, engineers, and technicians; and
(b) modernizing aging infrastructure.
Congress has provided a number of authorities to the labs
over the years, including direct hiring authority of scientists
and engineers with advanced degrees. However, in testimony
before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services on April
17, 2012, it appears that there may be a need for the labs to
have a similar authority for scientists, engineers, and
technicians with undergraduate technical degrees with unique
skills, expertise, and experience. Hence, the committee directs
each service science and technology executive, consulting with
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act that will
describe whether direct hiring authority of undergraduate
scientists and engineers is required, and provide an
explanation why existing authorities under the laboratory
personnel demonstration program authorized by section 342 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(Public Law 103-337), as amended, are not sufficient to meet
this need for direct hiring authority.
Concerning aging laboratory infrastructure, the committee
is pleased that the Army has initiated a survey of its
laboratory infrastructure and directs the Navy and Air Force to
undertake similar surveys of its laboratory infrastructure. In
addition, the committee understands the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering is also conducting a
survey of the DOD's laboratories. The committee directs the
services to brief the congressional defense committees on the
results of their surveys no later than March 1, 2013.
Dry Combat Submersible
The committee notes that U.S. Special Operations Command
(USSOCOM) has deferred plans for the foreseeable future to
procure Dry Combat Submersible-Light and associated Future Dry
Deck Shelter Extension Modifications in light of higher
priority requirements and budget constraints. The committee
also notes USSOCOM intends to continue forward with modified
plans to field a single Dry Combat Submersible variant. The
committee expects, consistent with the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81),
that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics will make a determination, prior to a
milestone B decision, on whether to treat the Dry Combat
Submersible program as a Major Defense Acquisition Program.
Energy efficiency research and development coordination and transition
The committee is encouraged by the Defense Department's
efforts to coordinate with the Department of Energy in pursuing
and evaluating energy efficient technologies. The wide variety
of investments made by the Defense Department towards reducing
energy usage has already illustrated savings; however, the
numerous organizations pursuing these initiatives within the
Defense Department and other federal agencies also presents
increasing potential for duplicative research and development
as well as successful technologies not identified and
effectively transitioned. The continued cooperation and
combination of technical expertise as coordinated in the July
2010, memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Departments
of Defense and Energy is important in maximizing the return on
these investments. The committee encourages the Defense
Department to continue both internal efforts and coordination
with other agencies to manage ongoing and planned energy
efficiency research and development as well as continuing to
establish processes for effectively transitioning technologies
for broader application across the Department of Defense.
Hexavalent chromium
The committee is encouraged by the Defense Department's
efforts to reduce and eliminate materials identified by the
Department of Defense Chemical and Material Risk Management
Directorate. In particular, the Department outlined aggressive
plans to reduce the use of hexavalent chromium. The committee
supports the Department's efforts to continue to pursue
research, development, testing, and evaluation of substitute
solutions as well as effective transition into existing and
future programs of record.
Human bone collections for Department of Defense research
The committee understands the importance of the Department
of Defense (DOD) to conduct research and study collections of
human bones. This research has contributed to the development
of personal protective equipment, improved medical procedures,
as well as medical devices for wounded service members.
Furthermore, the committee understands that collections
currently utilized by DOD may require a significant wait-time
to conduct the necessary research and the collections may lack
the demographic diversity in size and other characteristics
needed to represent the U.S. armed services today.
The committee encourages the DOD to utilize as broad of a
spectrum of publicly available bone collections as possible and
relevant when conducting research requiring the use of human
bones.
Hypersonics ground test and evaluation capabilities and workforce
Crucial to advancing the field of hypersonics that will
support the development of advanced weapons systems, is a
robust ground test and evaluation infrastructure that enables a
broad range of research and development capabilities. Whether
for vehicle aerodynamics, thermal design, or propulsion system
development, ground test facilities are crucial to not only
reducing risk in development, but for the research community to
expand foundational knowledge in this area of aeronautics, as
well as to increase confidence in computational design tools.
Much of the U.S. hypersonics test and evaluation
infrastructure--primarily shared between the Department of
Defense (DOD) and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), but also including some capabilities in
other parts of the government and the private sector--is dated;
existing facilities have limits in either test duration, or in
accurately replicating the physics of hypersonic flows, or in
the size of the models that can be tested. Furthermore, the
development of hypersonic air vehicles--including gliders or
those with air breathing propulsion--has experienced periods of
increasing and decreasing demand in the past few decades. This
situation has led to a large degree of uncertainty in the
demand for hypersonic test and evaluation facilities and hence
they have been a target for cost savings in the current fiscal
environment.
However, the DOD's new defense strategic guidance
emphasizes the importance of projecting power despite anti-
access/area denial challenges. In addition to rebalancing focus
towards the Asia-Pacific region, the guidance states that the
U.S. military ``will invest as required to ensure its ability
to operate effectively in anti-access and area denial (A2/AD)
environments.''
The committee notes that the wide expanses of distances in
the Asia-Pacific region, the growing A2/AD threat which
requires greater stand-off distances, and the increasing need
in modern warfare for fast response times for time-critical
targeting all point to the need for the Department to invest in
high-speed weapon and platform technologies, including
hypersonics.
The committee notes that the state of the Nation's
hypersonics ground test and evaluation facilities and workforce
have not received adequate attention over the years facing both
threats of divesture as well as gradual decay, and is concerned
that the broad developmental hypersonics community needs
renewed attention.
Hence, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to conduct a study on the ability of the Air Force air and
ground test and evaluation infrastructure facilities, including
wind tunnels and air test ranges, as well as associated
instrumentation, to support defense hypersonic test and
evaluation activities for the near and far term. The study
should consider the needs of research and technology
development as well as potential future DOD weapons programs.
The Secretary shall incorporate the results of the study into a
master plan for requirements and proposed investments to meet
the DOD needs through 2025. The Secretary of the Air Force
shall consult with the secretaries of the other military
departments, the Directors of the appropriate defense agencies,
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
(who oversees the Joint Technology Office on Hypersonics), and
the Director of the Test Resource Management Center to assess
the requirements needed to support hypersonic research,
development, test, and evaluation throughout the DOD and to
include all DOD requirements in the master plan. In addition,
the Secretary shall consult with NASA and leverage current
studies under the National Partnership for Aeronautical
Testing.
The study shall contain the following:
(a) Document the current condition and adequacy of
the Air Force test and evaluation infrastructure
required to support hypersonic research and development
within DOD;
(b) Identify test and evaluation infrastructure that
could be used to support DOD hypersonic research and
development outside the Department of the Air Force and
assess means to ensure the availability of such
capabilities to the DOD now and in the future; and
(c) Include a time phased plan to acquire required
hypersonic research and development test and evaluation
capabilities including identification of the resources
necessary to acquire any needed capabilities that are
currently not available.
The Secretary shall submit a report of the findings of this
study not later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act.
According to section 139d(a)(5)(D) of the Weapon System
Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009 (Public Law 111-23), the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Developmental
Test and Evaluation (DT&E) shall provide advocacy, oversight,
and guidance to elements of the acquisition workforce
responsible for developmental test and evaluation. In addition,
section 139d(b)(1)(A) of WSARA mandates that the service
acquisition executive of each military department develops
plans to ensure the military department concerned has provided
appropriate resources for developmental test organizations with
adequate numbers of trained personnel.
Hence, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Developmental Test and Evaluation, dual-hatted as the Director
of the Test Resource Management Center, shall work with the Air
Force acquisition executive, as well as the Commanders of the
Air Force Materiel Command and the Air Force Research
Laboratory, to ensure that the following objectives are met:
(a) Develop and sustain the expertise of the
hypersonics test and evaluation workforce; and
(b) Develop the next generation of hypersonics T&E
experts via Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics efforts.
The DASD for DT&E, along with the two Air Force officials
identified, shall brief the congressional defense committees no
later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act on what
specific steps are being taken to meet these objectives.
Internet cartography
One of the foundations of military operations are up-to-
date maps that vary in scale and detail to enable commanders to
visualize the terrain, understand the operational situation,
plan courses of action, and create a common understanding with
subordinates and peers. The Department of Defense (DOD) for
decades has supported a combat support defense agency whose
mission has solely or largely been focused on mapping, charting
and geodesy.
In the cyber domain, the need to understand the operational
``terrain'' is no less important. Yet, DOD has never
established a telecommunications and computer network mapping
program to address Department-wide requirements for
intelligence, network defense, campaign planning, exercises and
wargames, support to military operations, targeting, and
establishing a common operational picture. The National
Security Agency (NSA) certainly collects and analyzes a wealth
of data on foreign networks, but it does so only to support its
mission set, and not on a comprehensive or consistent basis.
Other DOD components map the cyber terrain in even more
sporadic and limited ways.
In part, this basic need has not been met because it has
been considered to be too hard--the Internet appears to be too
complex, too large in scale, and experiencing too rapid
changes. In addition, collecting the necessary detail
accurately at the necessary volume and speed was considered
technically too difficult.
This appears to be changing. Commercial capabilities exist
that hold promise for meeting the needs of U.S. Cyber Command
and the intelligence community.
The committee encourages the Cyber Command J-3, the NSA
Threat Operations Center, and the Defense Information Systems
Agency-managed Community Data Center to collaborate on a pilot
program to demonstrate a capability to produce detailed,
accurate Internet maps, update them rapidly, display them
interactively, and overlay enriching information. The committee
believes that an effective pilot demonstration program could be
conducted inexpensively, and encourages the Department to
pursue such efforts with available resources.
The committee also directs the Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, to undertake a study of DOD's broad needs
for cyberspace mapping and make a recommendation on whether DOD
needs to create a focused program and assign the mission to one
or more organizations to manage. The Vice Chairman shall brief
the congressional defense committees on this assessment by
March 1, 2013.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology--Lincoln Laboratory improvement
project
As a designated Department of Defense Federally Funded
Research and Development Center, Lincoln Laboratory conducts
research and development pertinent to national security on
behalf of the military services, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the intelligence community, and other government
agencies. The committee understands that the Air Force and
Lincoln Laboratory are considering modernizing and improving
some of the Laboratory's research facilities required for the
development of certain systems and technology for national
security needs.
The committee strongly urges the Department of Defense to
expedite its deliberations with the Office of Management and
Budget to develop a path forward to permit the Air Force to
conclude an arrangement with the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology for improving and modernizing the Lincoln Laboratory
complex at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts.
Medical Countermeasures Initiative
The budget request included $98.9 million in a variety of
defense-wide research and development budget lines for the
Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMI). This initiative is
intended to advance significantly the development and
manufacturing of biodefense medical countermeasures, including
vaccines and therapeutics. Such advances are important to meet
the growing risks of biological threats, including genetically
engineered threats, potential terrorist threats, and naturally
occurring disease outbreaks like pandemic influenza.
The committee notes that this initiative is a coordinated
and collaborative interagency effort, guided by updated
national strategy and guidance documents, and involves
particularly close cooperation between the Department of
Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Congress has previously encouraged such interagency
collaboration and coordination, and the committee commends the
administration for placing a priority on improving the medical
countermeasures capability of the nation, particularly
countermeasures to protect military forces against biological
threats.
The MCMI program is intended to establish an advanced
development and manufacturing facility on a cost-shared basis
with industry and academia. The Department will not own the
facility, which will ensure this approach is more cost-
effective and efficient than would otherwise be the case.
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 to accelerate the research, development and procurement
of biomedical countermeasures, including but not limited to
therapeutics and vaccines, for the protection of the Armed
Forces . . .''. The committee believes the MCMI program is an
important effort to meet this requirement.
Naval electromagnetic railgun projectiles
The Navy is developing an electromagnetic rail gun for
engagements of surface and air threats at ranges up to 200
nautical miles. The committee expressed concerns with the
program last year, but now feels that the Navy is making
progress in overcoming the various technical challenges on the
launcher. However, much remains to be done on the development
of suitable projectiles.
The committee is aware that in the past, the Navy and the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) discussed
collaborating on projectile development, but no serious joint
efforts emerged. The committee now understands that the Navy
and DARPA are planning to work together on projectile
development, including hardening and guidance/navigation
systems. The technologies may include low cost sensors tolerant
of high accelerations and temperatures, advanced materials,
modeling and simulation, and exo-atmospheric control systems.
Given the investments made to date in the launcher, the
committee fully supports this collaboration. The committee also
encourages the Navy and the Air Force to collaborate on this
project given the Air Force's expertise in hypersonics, as well
as high-speed, high acceleration fusing and warhead
technologies.
Naval Engineering Education Center
The committee notes that the Navy faces significant
challenges in training and hiring the next-generation of naval
engineers. As former Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter said
in 2007, ``Hiring top-quality people who have experience with
large shipbuilding programs is essential. The ability to assign
an experienced and capable team must be a precondition to a
program's initiation. Finding and developing the people we need
is easier said than done, and it will take time to rectify this
problem, but we cannot ignore the leverage that can be obtained
by putting the right, experienced and prepared people, in the
right positions.'' The Naval Engineering Education Center
(NEEC) was established in 2010 to help address the issues
identified by then-Secretary Winter and now supports research
and educational opportunities for more than 100 students at
member universities with the goal of attracting and retaining
qualified naval engineering talent. The committee commends the
Navy for proactively working to address its naval engineering
workforce issues and has been impressed with the success of the
program in meeting its goals to date.
However, the committee is concerned that the Navy has not
identified a long-term, stable funding source for the NEEC. The
committee understands that, to date, the NEEC has been
substantially funded by Operation and Maintenance funds
provided to Navy laboratories to pay for overhead expenses. The
committee believes this is an unsustainable funding arrangement
and is concerned that continuing in such a way will hinder the
growth and effectiveness of the NEEC over time. The committee
believes robust and predictable funding is important to
sustaining meaningful research activities, recruiting students
to participate in the program, and ensuring professors and Navy
personnel remain fully engaged.
In light of these concerns, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to provide a report, not later than
December 31, 2012, outlining: (1) the Navy's plan to ensure the
sustainability of the NEEC; (2) the potential funding sources
to provide robust and predictable support to the program; (3)
the projected funding levels for the NEEC across the future-
years defense program; (4) a value assessment of the NEEC to
date in meeting the goals of the program; and (5) the metrics
the Navy will use to measure the success of the program in
future years.
Support for the Minerva Research Initiative
The budget request included $19.4 million in PE 61110D8Z
for Department of Defense Basic Research Initiatives. Of this
amount, $16.5 million was requested for the Minerva Research
Initiative.
The Minerva program was established by then-Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates in 2008 as a way to improve the
Department's understanding of social, cultural, and political
forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance
to U.S. national security policy. The current Secretary of
Defense, Leon Panetta, has since expressed his support for the
initiative.
The committee supports the Department's fiscal year 2013
funding request for Minerva, despite a significant cut in the
program's fiscal year 2012 appropriations that unfortunately
impacted the number of new research grants. The committee
believes that the research supported by Minerva is more
important than ever in today's uncertain geopolitical
environment. It is important to develop a deeper understanding
for responses to significant events and issues such as the Arab
awakening, the continuing--and growing in some regions--threat
of violent Islamic extremism, and the dynamics of resource-
driven conflicts in many parts of the world. In addition, it is
vital to gain a better understanding of, and respond to, the
trends and developments in China's military growth and
modernization, strategic interests, and technological advances,
particularly as they relate to the People's Liberation Army's
role in setting priorities and influencing China's national
security, economic, and foreign policy agenda.
To this end, the committee encourages the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy to ensure that fiscal year 2013
funds for the Initiative properly reflect the new strategic
defense guidance, published by the Department of Defense in
2012. The committee also urges the Initiative to invest in
nationally recognized academic experts for the chairs at the
professional military education institutes. Lastly, the
committee encourages the Department to ensure that funding for
Minerva-type research increases in the individual services.
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--Energy and Environmental Provisions
Department of Defense guidance on environmental exposures at military
installations (sec. 311)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to issue guidance relating to how the
military departments and other defense agencies deal with the
possible exposure of individuals to environmental contamination
at military installations.
Section 314 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383)
directed the Comptroller General of the United States to
conduct an assessment of possible exposures to environmental
hazards on military installations and examine related policies
and processes of the Department of Defense (DOD) and other
aspects of how environmental exposures are handled. On May 1,
2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued its
final report entitled, DOD Can Improve Its Response to
Environmental Exposures on Military Installations (GAO-12-412).
As this title implies, the GAO found various limitations in
existing DOD policies and processes that impact adversely on
the Department's ability to address environmental exposures of
people living and working at military installations. To address
these deficiencies, GAO made a number of recommendations, to
include:
1. Establishing procedures to track and document
status and nature of DOD responses to the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
recommendations and findings of significant risk, and
to update the Memorandum of Understanding between DOD
and ATSDR to reflect these new procedures;
2. Establishing a policy that identifies when
installations should consider requesting public health
assessments in addition to the initial assessments at
National Priorities List sites; and
3. Provide guidance on what actions, if any, DOD
should take to identify and address possible health
risks faced by individuals from past exposures at
military installations.
DOD, in its comments on the GAO recommendations, concurred
with part of the first recommendation, but did not concur with
part of the first recommendation or with the second or third
recommendation.
The committee agrees that these recommendations would help
improve the policies and procedures within the DOD regarding
the handling of possible environmental exposures at military
installations, would result in more consistent responses to
these issues throughout Department, and would advance the goal
of providing safe and environmentally sound living and working
conditions on military installations.
Funding of agreements under the Sikes Act (sec. 312)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) to allow funds committed by
the Department of Defense in a cooperative agreement to be made
in a lump sum and to be placed in an interest bearing account
with the interest available to be applied for the same purposes
as the principal.
Limitation on availability of funds for procurement of alternative fuel
(sec. 313)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of funds authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Defense in fiscal year 2013 from being obligated
or expended for the production or sole purchase of an
alternative fuel if the cost exceeds the cost of traditional
fossil fuels used for the same purpose, except for continued
testing purposes.
The committee notes that in December 2011, the Defense
Logistics Agency, on behalf of the Department of the Navy,
purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuels for $12.0 million, which
equates to $26.66 a gallon. According to the Department of the
Navy it was the single largest purchase of biofuel in
government history and was carried out in order to
``demonstrate the capability of a Carrier Strike Group and its
air wing to burn alternative fuels.'' The Department of the
Navy noted that, despite the use of operation and maintenance
funds for the purchase, the demonstration is deemed a research,
development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) initiative as
justification for the higher cost per gallon.
The committee also notes that the Vice Chief of Naval
Operations testified before the Subcommittee on Readiness and
Management Support on May 10, 2012, regarding pressure on
readiness accounts from increased fuel prices that ``every $1
increase in the price per barrel of fuel results in
approximately $31M of additional cost annually above our
budgeted level.'' Therefore, the high cost of fuel has direct
and detrimental impact on other readiness accounts.
The committee strongly supports initiatives undertaken by
the Department of Defense to reduce the fuel demand of the
operational forces through affordable new technologies that
increase fuel efficiency and offer alternative sources of
power. But given the pressure placed on current and future
defense budgets, the committee is concerned about the use of
operation and maintenance funds to pay significantly higher
costs for biofuels being used for RDTE efforts. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop and
promulgate guidance to the military services and defense
agencies on the difference between the operational use of
alternative fuels versus continued RDTE initiatives.
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment
Repeal of certain provisions relating to depot-level maintenance (sec.
321)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the
amendments to provisions relating to depot-level maintenance
made by sections 321 and 327 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
Sections 321 and 327 were intended to make the existing
requirements more ``visible and readily understood'' without
making any substantive change. However, the new language
included changes that could significantly impact the balance of
work between the public and private sectors. For example:
Before the enactment of the new provisions,
section 2460 of title 10, United States Code, excluded major
modifications and upgrades from the definition of depot-level
maintenance. The amendments made by section 321 eliminated this
exclusion.
Before the enactment of the new provisions,
section 2460 and section 2464 of title 10, United States Code,
excluded nuclear aircraft carrier refueling availabilities from
the definition of depot-level maintenance and from the
requirement for core logistics capabilities. The amendments
made by sections 321 and 327 eliminated these exclusions.
Before the enactment of the new provisions,
section 2464 excluded special access programs. The amendments
made by section 327 eliminated this exclusion.
Before the enactment of the new provisions,
section 2464 applied only to programs of record. The amendments
made by section 327 extended the applicability of the provision
to any military equipment that ``is fielded in support of
operations.''
Moreover, even language changes that the Department of
Defense has assessed to have no substantive impact--such as the
change in terminology from ``core logistics capabilities'' to
``core depot-level maintenance and repair capabilities''--may
have unintended consequences.
The Department of Defense has indicated that it will
attempt to address problems caused by the new language through
creative interpretation of the statutory language and the
issuance of multiple waivers (including categorical waivers) to
the core logistics requirements in section 2464 and the so-
called ``50-50'' requirements in section 2466 of title 10,
United States Code. While it appears that this approach will
enable the department to get through fiscal year 2012 without
major disruption of public sector or private sector depot
activities, extensive reliance on questionable statutory
interpretations and waivers to comply with a statute that is
otherwise unworkable is not good precedent or good policy.
While it might be possible to fix specific problems in the
new statute through targeted amendments, the committee is
concerned that such targeted amendments could themselves raise
difficult issues of interpretation. The previous balance
between public and private sectors was achieved not only by
statutory language, but also by longstanding policies and
practices, some of which differed from military department to
military department. The new legislation, in its effort to make
the statutory language more visible and readily understood, has
placed many of these longstanding policies and practices in
question.
For this reason, the committee concluded that the best
alternative is to repeal sections 321 and 327 and restore the
former statutory language in its entirety. By making this
repeal retroactive to the date of the enactment of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the committee
intends to ensure that waivers issued during the period when
the amendments made by sections 321 and 327 were in effect have
no precedential value.
The committee directs the military departments to interpret
the restored statute in accordance with longstanding policies
and practices that were in place before the enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
Subtitle D--Reports
Annual report on Department of Defense long-term corrosion strategy
(sec. 331)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 371 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181, 10 U.S.C. 2228) to require the
Department of Defense to provide additional information on
corrosion projects in reports to Congress, including validated
returns on investment for completed corrosion projects,
activities, and information on how corrosion funding is used
for military projects, the Technical Corrosion Collaboration
pilot program, and other corrosion-related activities.
Modified deadline for Comptroller General review of annual report on
prepositioned materiel and equipment (sec. 332)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
deadline for the annual report on prepositioned materiel and
equipment conducted by the Government Accountability Office.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Savings to be achieved in civilian workforce and contractor employee
workforce of the Department of Defense (sec. 341)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and begin implementation of a
plan to achieve savings in funding for the civilian workforce
and the service contractor workforce of the Department of
Defense (DOD) that are not less, as a percentage of such
funding, than the savings in funding for military personnel
achieved by the planned reduction in military end strength
contained in the budget request for fiscal year 2012. Current
DOD plans call for a reduction in military end strength in
excess of 5 percent through fiscal year 2017. The committee
estimates that a comparable level of savings in the civilian
and service contractor workforces will total in excess of $5.0
billion over 5 years, over and above any savings that the
Department may already plan or expect to achieve as a result of
initiatives already in place.
The provision would exempt expenses for civilian employees
in mission critical occupations, personnel employed at military
depots, and the offices of the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense, and for contractor employees performing
maintenance and repair of military equipment, medical services,
and financial audit services. It would authorize the Secretary
to establish additional exemptions, if he determines that they
are necessary for the performance of critical functions in the
interest of national defense. The committee concludes that
these exceptions provide the Department with ample flexibility
to ensure that the Department has the capacity it needs to
perform its critical missions. The committee expects the
Secretary to continue to seek savings with regard to critical
functions, such as maintenance and repair of military
equipment, even though they are exempt from the reductions
under this provision.
The committee acknowledges that the DOD efficiencies
initiatives will result in an overall reduction in civilian
personnel of almost 2 percent, and additional savings through
the freeze on civilian pay increases. The committee is also
aware that the efficiencies initiatives, coupled with the
requirements of section 808 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81),
have resulted in significant savings in the service contractor
workforce.
However, these policies were established before the
administration's decision to reduce military end strength by
123,900 over the next 5 years--a 6.8 percent reduction for the
Army, 3.9 percent reduction for the Navy, 8.3 percent reduction
for the Marine Corps and 2.3 percent reduction for the Air
Force. This provision will ensure that savings achieved in the
civilian personnel workforce and the contractor employee
workforce are brought in line with savings from the newer,
deeper cuts to military end strength.
The committee notes that the Comptroller General, in the
``2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication,
Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance
Revenue,'' concluded that DOD should continue to consolidate or
eliminate defense headquarters to achieve additional
efficiencies. In the development of plans to reduce federal
civilian personnel expenses, particular attention should be
paid to reduction of management headquarters. The committee
expects the Secretary to take into account the strategic
workforce plan, and critical capabilities included therein, in
the development of plans to reduce expenditures for federal
civilian personnel of the Department.
NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 342)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Department of Defense to provide up to $50.0 million in
fiscal year 2013 and subsequent years to the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ) for
the purposes of: (1) improving coordination and cooperation
between the special operations forces of North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) nations; (2) facilitating joint operations
by special operations forces of NATO nations; (3) supporting
command, control, and communications capabilities peculiar to
special operations forces of NATO nations; (4) promoting
special operations forces intelligence and informational
requirements within the NATO structure; and (5) promoting
interoperability through the development of common equipment
standards, tactics, techniques, and procedures, and through
execution of multinational education and training programs.
Additionally, the recommended provision requires an annual
report summarizing Department of Defense support to the NSHQ.
The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense
designated the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) as the
``Lead Component with Executive Agent Responsibilities'' for
the NSHQ on November 5, 2010. The committee also notes that the
U.S. Army continues to retain funding responsibilities for the
NSHQ as the designated administrative agent for NATO. The
committee further notes that the Secretary of Defense has
directed USSOCOM and the Army to complete a Memorandum of
Agreement detailing their respective roles and responsibilities
as they relate to the NSHQ. The committee expects funding of
the NSHQ will be executed in accordance with the specified
Memorandum of Agreement.
Repeal of redundant authority to ensure interoperability of law
enforcement and emergency responder training (sec. 343)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 372 of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that
Department of Defense support to a federal, state, or local law
enforcement or emergency response agency to prepare for or
respond to an emergency involving chemical or biological agents
is consistent with the national preparedness system and other
statutory changes made since the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security.
Budget Items
General Fund Enterprise Business System Realignment
The budget request included $556.3 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), for administration.
The committee has received a request from the Army to
realign $17.2 million into General Fund Enterprise Business
System (GFEBS) to support the engineering development effort
necessary to process classified and sensitive transactions and
to mitigate the risk of exposing classified information.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $17.2
million in OMA for GFEBS realignment.
Museum funding decrease for ahead of need request
The budget request included $1.1 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), for Other Service Support, of which
$8.1 million was for the National Museum of the United States
Army.
The Army's budget growth justification cited, ``exhibits
planning, fabrication, installation, storage and conversation
for the initial opening of the museum''. However, given the
museum has yet to be built, the committee is concerned that the
increase of funding requested for museum exhibits is ahead of
need. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $8.1
million in OMA for the National Museum of the United States
Army.
Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances
The budget request included $36.6 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $41.6 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $5.9 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps, $35.4 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $31.9 billion for Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW).
The committee notes that the sustained challenges
associated with combat operations in Afghanistan have created a
difficult fiscal management situation, especially for the Army
and Marine Corps. However, the Department of Defense continues
to under-execute its Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
appropriations. The Government Accountability Office has
informed the committee that the average annual O&M unobligated
balances for fiscal years 2007-2011 were $1.4 billion for the
Army, $286.1 million for the Navy, $386.5 million for the Air
Force, $91.8 million for the Marine Corps, and $340.8 million
for Defense-wide. These continued excessive unobligated
balances are not consistent with sound stewardship of taxpayer
dollars. In light of the fiscal management challenges, the
committee concludes that certain reductions are appropriate.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $120.0
million to OMA, a decrease of $23.0 million to OMN, a decrease
of $32.0 million to OMAF, and a decrease of $25.0 million to
OMDW.
U.S. Special Operations Command Operation and Maintenance
The budget request included no funding in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, for U.S. Special Operations Command
(USSOCOM). A clerical error placed USSOCOM's base request of
$5,091.0 million for Operation and Maintenance incorrectly in
the ``classified programs'' budget line. Therefore, the
committee recommends a transfer of $5,091.0 million from the
Classified Programs Operation and Maintenance budget line to
the USSOCOM Operation and Maintenance budget line, reflecting
the amounts shown in the budget justification documents.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency
The budget request included $557.9 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency (DSCA). Of this amount, the request included
$365.0 million for the Global Train and Equip program to build
the capacity of foreign military forces to meet emerging
security threats. The requested amount for the Global Train and
Equip program would be $15.0 million in excess of the program's
currently authorized level for fiscal year 2012 of $350.0
million under section 1206 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), as
most recently amended by section 1204 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
Further, the budget request included $2.6 million for the
DSCA'S Security Cooperation Assessment Office (SCAO). The SCAO
is an initiative by DSCA to gather, analyze, and assess the
impact of the Department's security cooperation programs and
initiatives. The committee continues to believe such an
assessment of DSCA's programs is necessary. That is why in the
Senate report accompanying S. 1235 (S. Rept. 112-26) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 the
committee directed the Comptroller General of the United States
to conduct such an audit of DSCA's programs and develop
recommendations on how to improve DSCA's current activities.
The committee looks forward to reviewing the Comptroller
General's findings and in a separate section of this report
directs the Comptroller General to undertake additional work to
address the Department's needs in this area.
Therefore the committee recommends a decrease of $17.6
million to OMDW for DSCA, consisting of a decrease of $15.0
million to the Global Train and Equip program and a decrease of
$2.6 million to the SCAO.
Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request
The budget request included $253.4 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Office of Economic
Adjustment (OEA), of which $139.4 million was for socioeconomic
and water/wastewater infrastructure improvements related to the
relocation of Marines to Guam.
Given the reevaluation of the relocation of Marines to
Guam, the committee is concerned that the funds requested for
the OEA are ahead of need. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a decrease of $139.4 million in OMDW for the OEA.
Enhanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support to
Operation Observant Compass
The budget request included classified amounts for United
States Africa Command (AFRICOM) intelligence activities,
including support to Operation Observant Compass (OOC). The
committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million, in Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide, line 280, to expand and enhance
the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
support to AFRICOM's OOC--the ongoing operation to support the
efforts of Ugandan and other regional militaries to remove
senior leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) from the
battlefield in Central Africa.
The committee supports AFRICOM's ongoing operation in
Central Africa in support of partner nation militaries, and the
committee is eager to ensure U.S. service members deployed to
advise and assist these regional efforts are provided with the
resources and unique enabling support required to ensure
mission success. That is why--pursuant to the policy
established by the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and
Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-172)--in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81), the committee recommended and Congress
approved a provision permitting the Secretary of Defense to
provide not more than $35.0 million in logistics support,
services, and supplies to the national militaries in the region
conducting operations to disarm and remove senior elements of
the LRA.
The committee notes that AFRICOM has only limited
contractor-owned and -operated ISR platforms deployed in
support of OOC. These capabilities are inadequate in multiple
respects, most notably their inability to loiter over areas of
interest for extended periods of time and to collect and
disseminate various forms of intelligence promptly. While the
committee is aware of a number of temporary and rotational
efforts underway to enhance ISR support to OOC, the committee
believes that without additional resourcing the current
operation is likely to remain constrained by poor intelligence
support. Without adequate ISR resourcing and support the
committee is concerned that OOC will suffer from a lack of
critical tipping-and-cueing intelligence capability to find and
locate LRA forces.
The committee is concerned that AFRICOM's current
resourcing of this mission through the Air Force Big Safari
program office and its contractors is unnecessarily costly and
is not meeting the needs of the supported forces. The committee
directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI)
and AFRICOM to evaluate alternative capability providers and
contracting arrangements, both for existing and enhanced
intelligence support.
The committee also notes that there is enduring high demand
for additional airborne ISR support for AFRICOM and U.S.
special operations forces in this region beyond the
requirements of the OOC mission. The committee directs USDI and
AFRICOM to consider these needs when making decisions about
platforms, sensors, basing, and manning.
Operation and Maintenance 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
Items of Special Interest
Advanced predictive modeling and simulation methodologies
The committee recognizes that early integration of advanced
predictive modeling and simulation methodologies into program
acquisition and life cycle planning can help to avoid cost,
reduce cost, and increase operational readiness by reducing
unscheduled maintenance. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to examine the appropriate applications of
advanced predictive modeling and simulation technologies in the
acquisition process of major weapon system programs, including
prior to Milestone B, and provide a report to the congressional
defense committees by March 30, 2013.
Air Force strategic basing process
In Senate report accompanying S. 1253 (S. Rept. 112-26) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
the committee directed the Air Force to consider the evaluation
of relative flying operation costs for each candidate base
during its strategic basing process. The committee commends
recent efforts made by the Air Force to do so through the
creation of the Air Refueling Received Demand Model. The model
accounts for refueling demand from lower priority missions,
such as the movement of air show assets, during recent years.
The committee is concerned, however, that the new model
excludes evaluation of the demand for the highest priority
activities as determined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
including events where the aircraft departs from and returns to
its home station. The air refueling demand for Priority 1 and
Priority 2 sorties includes wartime and counterdrug missions,
missions directed by the President, the Secretary of Defense,
or combatant commanders, Coronet missions, and the deployment
of assets in support of homeland defense. In total, these
events account for 16 percent of the total operational demand
for air refueling platforms.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to report to Congress no later than 90 days after
enactment of this Act, on how the demand for all refueling
events in which the aircraft departs from and returns to home
station, regardless of the events' relative Joint Chiefs of
Staff Mission Priority, will be accounted for in the Air
Refueling Receiver Demand Model in the strategic basing process
and future basing decisions. The committee further encourages
the Air Force to assign greater value to the demand for high-
priority missions, as established by the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
in the model.
Canines in support of members of the armed forces
The committee recognizes the outstanding contribution of
military working dogs in Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation
Iraqi Freedom, and other military contingency operations. These
courageous and talented canines have saved lives, including
those of service members, through their work in detecting
intruders, drugs, and improvised explosive devices. The
committee recognizes the value of these highly trained animals
in performing critical and varied roles to support both service
members and civilians. In particular, the committee
acknowledges the sacrifices of those military working dogs
killed, wounded, or missing in action. The committee therefore
encourages the Secretary of Defense to honor the service of all
military working dogs, and especially those who perform
exceptionally meritorious service, through appropriate
recognition of their service.
Comptroller General of the United States assessment of Department of
Defense security cooperation activities
Over the past decade, the Department of Defense (DOD) has
expanded significantly its security cooperation activities.
According to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, more than
$5.0 billion is spent on the DOD security cooperation program
annually. DOD acknowledges openly its current inability to
assess the impact of these activities in the medium- and long-
term. The committee, however, recognizes that the impact of
security cooperation programs, many of which are the
cornerstone of our military-to-military relations with our key
allies and partners around the globe, is difficult to measure.
As such, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct a review of DOD's security cooperation
programs to examine the effectiveness, efficiency, and medium-
and long-term results of DOD's programs in this area to
consider the return on investment for these programs, and to
make recommendations to optimize future security cooperation
investments and policies targeted at achieving foreign policy
objectives.
The committee hopes the Comptroller General's review will
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of DOD's security
cooperation programs over time, maximize their value to the
geographic combatant command commanders and U.S. foreign
partners, and allow DOD to design and implement security
cooperation programs optimized to meet requirements established
by the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
The committee encourages the Comptroller General to consult
with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/
Low Intensity Conflict to identify priority security
cooperation programs of mutual concern. The Comptroller General
shall provide routine briefings to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Consideration of fuel cell systems
The committee is encouraged by many of the findings and
recommendations included in the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
sponsored report, ``Beyond Demonstration: The Role of Fuel
Cells in DoD's Energy Strategy,'' published on October 19,
2011. Among other things, this report recommended that
Department of Defense (DOD) headquarters organizations and the
military services: (1) develop and implement procurement models
that enable more efficient acquisition of fuel cell systems;
(2) consider fuel cell systems for meeting electric power,
heating, and cooling demands whenever new facilities and major
renovations are planned and designed; (3) consider fuel cell
systems when planning and designing backup power capability for
DOD sites; and (4) consider fuel cell power for material
handling equipment. The committee directs the DOD to report
back to the congressional defense committees no later than June
1, 2013, on the steps being taken to implement the
recommendations of the DLA report, or if the DOD does not
intend to implement any of the recommendations, to explain the
reasons behind those decisions.
Corrosion prevention
Corrosion prevention at the Department of Defense (DOD) has
been a priority for the committee because of its potential to
increase readiness, improve operational safety, and reduce
costs.
One tactic that has been used to prevent or reduce
corrosion is the application of protective coatings and paints
that are applied to DOD weapon systems, military equipment, and
infrastructure. The committee understands that several DOD
components currently require that such coatings be applied by
certified contractors using personnel who have been qualified
through approved training programs.
The committee directs the Director of Corrosion Policy and
Oversight to review the use of such certification requirements
and determine whether the broader application of qualification
standards would be in the best interest of the Department. The
Director shall notify the congressional defense committees on
the findings and recommendations of this review no later than
180 days after enactment of this Act.
Corrosion projects' return on investment and funding for corrosion-
related activities
While the committee supports efforts by the Department of
Defense (DOD) to adequately address the problem of corrosion
and resulting materiel degradation in the design, development
and testing of new major weapon systems, the committee is
concerned about the accuracy of the return on investment (ROI)
that the DOD has reported on its corrosion projects. In the
DOD's March 2012 Report to Congress on DOD Corrosion Policy and
Oversight Budget Materials, it projected an average ROI for
projects approved to date as in excess of 50:1. The corrosion
program ROI is primarily calculated on those projects that are
funded, after they are nominated by the military departments
and reviewed for approval by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and the Joint Staff, and to a lesser degree on the
activities funded.
In December 2010, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO), however, reported that the military departments are late
in validating ROIs for some completed projects. The DOD's
Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan suggests
that follow-on reviews with validated ROIs are required for
completed projects within 3 years after full project
implementation. In 2012, the GAO identified that some validated
ROIs have been completed, but that the DOD did not update the
projected ROI in its Report to Congress on DOD Corrosion Policy
and Oversight Budget Materials to account for a validated ROI.
As long as the DOD continues to report only the average
projected ROIs and does not include information about the
validated ROIs, Congress will lack full visibility into the
results of the DOD's efforts to prevent and mitigate corrosion.
Therefore, the committee directs the DOD Office of
Corrosion Policy and Oversight to account for validated ROIs,
when available, in its annual corrosion budget materials report
to Congress so that it will have the best information on which
to base funding-decisions and the DOD has more factual data to
determine how to best invest corrosion prevention funds.
The committee is also concerned about the lack of
transparency about how the DOD is spending the additional funds
provided to support unfunded requirements. The DOD has
consistently identified in its annual Report to Congress on DOD
Corrosion Policy and Oversight Budget Materials the lack of
funding for projects as comprising the majority of its unfunded
Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPC) requirement. For the
past several years, the DOD has also received funding over its
CPC budget request and in most years DOD has not used the funds
to undertake all acceptable military corrosion projects. The
DOD has used the funding for corrosion projects as well as
other activities such as research through the Technical
Corrosion Collaboration (TCC) pilot program. The DOD is
required to report the amount of funds requested in the budget
for each project and activity. But, while the DOD's annual
report mentions the TCC as an activity, it has not included
specific information on the funding amounts for this pilot
program.
Therefore, the committee directs the DOD Office of
Corrosion Policy and Oversight to include in its Report to
Congress on DOD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Budget Materials
the amount of funds used for military corrosion projects, the
TCC pilot program, and other corrosion-related activities for
the preceding fiscal year.
Critical manufacturing capabilities and capacities
The committee maintains the view that expanded authority
for all military industrial facilities to designate Centers of
Industrial and Technical Excellence significantly improves the
Department of Defense's core competencies, repair capabilities,
and manufacturing functions. As operational tempo declines from
drawdowns associated with combat operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the committee is concerned that sufficient
workload is necessary to ensure cost efficiency and technical
competence in peacetime, while preserving the ability to
provide an effective and timely response to a mobilization,
national defense contingency situations, and other emergency
requirements.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to identify critical manufacturing capabilities and capacities
that should be government owned and government operated,
identify the level of work needed to sustain capabilities, and
report to the congressional defense committees on these matters
no later than February 28, 2013.
Department of Defense inventory management
Section 328 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the Department of
Defense (DOD) to develop a comprehensive plan for improving DOD
inventory management systems, with an objective of reducing the
acquisition and storage of secondary inventory that is excess
to requirements.
In January 2011, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reported that DOD's Comprehensive Inventory Management
Improvement Plan addressed each of the eight elements required
by section 328, but would be challenged to meet the aggressive
timelines and benchmarks in the Plan.
In May 2012, GAO reported that DOD has made progress in
implementing the plan, but that significant challenges remain--
particularly in the areas of improving demand forecasting,
multi-echelon modeling, and implementing revised guidance on
retention management. GAO recommended that DOD: (1)
periodically reexamine and update targets and timelines for
reducing excess on-order and on-hand inventory; (2) incorporate
comprehensive, standardized metrics into inventory management
guidance; and (3) employ these metrics for monitoring the
effectiveness of improved inventory management practices.
The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Logistics and Materiel Readiness to report to the
congressional defense committees, no later than 3 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, on the steps that DOD has
taken to implement the GAO recommendations.
Energy performance savings contracts
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
(DOD) spends billions of dollars on energy costs each year and
that financing large-scale energy projects can be cost-
prohibitive for the DOD. Energy Performance Savings Contracts
(ESPC) enable the DOD to finance energy efficiency upgrades on
military installations by funding various Energy Conservation
Measures, through private investments, and receive a guarantee
that the energy savings will pay for the project.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review
the potential applicability of ESPC authority to construct
power generating plants, and to acquire mobile sources,
including electric and natural gas-powered vehicles and their
associated charging stations on military installations, and to
make recommendations to the congressional defense committees if
changes in law or regulation are needed for the Department to
pursue efficient and effective initiatives using ESPC
authorities.
Essential role of rare earth materials
Rare earth materials play an essential role in several
critical weapons components and systems such as precision-
guided munitions, electric ship drives, command and control
centers, and aircraft, tanks, and missile systems. The
committee notes the predominance of unreliable foreign sources
for rare earth materials, including China, which provides
roughly 94 percent of the world's rare earth oxides and nearly
all rare earth metal within the defense-related supply chain
and which has repeatedly decreased export quotas and imposed
embargoes of these critical materials. Even with the
development of the domestic-supply chain there may be continued
reliance on production of certain heavy rare earth elements
from China. The importance of rare earth materials for national
defense applications necessitates a thorough understanding of
vulnerabilities in the rare earth supply chain and the
development of pragmatic, actionable risk mitigation plans to
reduce the likelihood of supply interruptions. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense to carefully consider the
role of U.S. producers and potential means to develop reliable
domestic sources to meet Department rare earth materials
requirements.
Funding shortfalls for minimum capital investment program, facilities
sustainment, restoration, and modernization, and base
operations support
The committee remains concerned that the failure of the
Department of Defense (DOD) to fully fund several critical
readiness accounts over the last decade poses a continuing risk
to the readiness, training and operational capability of
military forces. Base operations support, capital investment
program (CIP), and Facility Sustainment, Restoration and
Modernization (FSRM) funding are all critical to maintaining
durable facilities for the readiness, training, and operations
of military forces. Underinvestment in these facilities can
lead to increased military construction needs, which could
otherwise be avoided.
The Navy was the only military department to fail to fund
the minimum 6 percent CIP in the Fiscal Year 2013 budget
request. The committee continues to believe that investment
funds included in the capital budget of an industrial facility
should go to modernize or improve efficiency of facilities
equipment, work environment, or processes in direct support of
the facility's mission. The committee urges the military
departments to allocate adequate resources to meet the
congressionally-directed minimum 6 percent for CIP requirement.
The committee is concerned that the level of FSRM funding
for military installations is not sufficient to meet
infrastructure needs. Recognizing in this tight budgeting
environment that the DOD must weigh risks to infrastructure
against equipping, training, and personnel demands, the cost to
repair or replace facilities that have not received adequate
investments is far greater than preventative or restorative
maintenance. The committee strongly believes that the military
departments should fund at least 90 percent of the amounts
determined by the Facility Sustainment Model, while providing
additional funding to support restoration and modernization
requirements.
The problem of inadequate funding is compounded in the case
of joint bases where services calculate FSRM needs differently
and the services owning the installation does not factor the
alternative service's formula into the process leading to
insufficient funding to address installation needs. The
committee is also concerned that the adjustment of the
allocation of FSRM funds provided to each military installation
to address the unique and more costly requirements for
facilities that are listed or eligible for the National
Registry of Historic Places as required by the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 may not accurately
reflect the actual requirements imposed by the NHPA.
The committee directs the DOD to review the allocation
system for FSRM funding to ensure parity in the distribution of
funds among the military departments and adequate adjustments
for unique facility requirements, including joint bases and
historical preservation. The committee further directs the
Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense
committees on the findings of the review no later than March 1,
2013.
Ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms
Section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) established that the
design and fielding of all future ground combat and camouflage
utility uniforms of the armed forces may uniquely reflect the
identity of the individual military services, provided that the
ground combat and utility uniforms, to the maximum extent
practicable, provide members of every service an equivalent
level of performance, functionality, and protection
commensurate with their respective assigned combat missions,
minimize the risk to the individual, and provide
interoperability with other components of individual warfighter
systems. Section 352 also required the secretaries of the
military departments to establish joint criteria for future
combat uniforms in coordination with the results of a review
conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
In a report to the committee, the Department of Defense
(DOD) acknowledged that the Department ``can do more and is
taking the necessary steps to further promote and enhance both
ongoing inter-service collaboration and life-cycle coordination
with the Defense Logistics Agency.''
However, the committee is concerned that the joint criteria
required by section 352 has not yet been issued and the DOD-
established Joint Clothing and Textile Governance Board (JCTGB)
has not yet established ``a common set of parameters for basic
performance characteristics such as protection, concealment,
reliability, durability, sensor mitigation, survivability, and
network readiness.''
This delay is problematic because the Army is currently in
the final stages of developing a ``family'' of camouflage
patterns for its next ground combat uniform. The committee
understands that the Army currently plans to make its final
selection for this uniform in 2013, before the JCTGB is
expected to finalize the common parameters for uniform
performance characteristics.
The committee also understands that the Department of the
Navy has chosen to equip its sailors and marines with different
varieties of ground combat uniforms, providing significantly
different levels of protection. Specifically, while marines and
naval special warfare have been issued digital camouflage
patterns, all other Navy units continue to wear an inferior
camouflage pattern that was developed in the early 1980s
possibly leaving sailors in a combat environment at an
increased tactical risk.
The committee concludes that uniforms incorporating the
most advanced levels of protection should be available to all
men and women in uniform, regardless of the military service in
which they serve. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to take steps to ensure that: (1) common
parameters established by the JCTGB are reflected in the Army's
next ground combat uniform prior to fielding; and (2) uniforms
providing an appropriate level of protection are available to
all Navy units serving in areas of combat operation. The
Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense
committees of the steps taken to address these issues no later
than 60 days after enactment of this Act.
Lack of competition in Air Force C-17 engine maintenance contracting
The committee remains concerned that the Air Force has
failed to maximize competition in planned maintenance of the C-
17's F117 engine, losing the benefit of the most effective
mechanism to reduce costs, manage risk, and maximize efficiency
in supply chain management (SCM). Because the F117 engine is 91
percent similar to the commercial family of engines in the
PW2000, multiple competitors should be available to provide
support, maintenance, and sustainment for these engines.
However, the F117 sustainment strategy timeline briefed to the
committee would phase in competition slowly and would not
commit the Air Force to competition in all areas of SCM and
sustaining engineering.
The committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to
exercise competitive approaches to the support, maintenance,
and sustainment of F117 engines to the maximum extent
practicable. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to brief the congressional defense committees on steps
that will be taken to enhance competition in this area and to
notify the congressional defense committees of: (1) any
deviation from the F117 sustainment strategy timeline; and (2)
any significant change in projected yearly savings with respect
to SCM or sustaining engineering.
Marine Corps depot maintenance activity group
Recent analysis of the Marine Corps depot maintenance
activity group (DMAG) conducted by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) revealed that there is room for
improvement with respect to the budgeting and management of
carryover. The committee commends the Marine Corps for properly
managing carryover amounts below the allowable limits,
especially when compared to the other services' working capital
funds. However, the committee is concerned that the Marine
Corps underestimated the DMAG's new orders every year during
the 6-year period of review by the GAO, from a low of 51
percent to a high of 175 percent. Accordingly, the committee
encourages the Marine Corps DMAG to improve the budgeting and
management of carryover by comparing budgeted to actual
information on carryover and orders and making adjustments to
budget estimates as appropriate.
Modernizing the aging fleet
The committee notes that the Department of Defense's new
strategic guidance, and future-years defense program, place
increased demand on legacy Air Force platforms to counter
contemporary threats and meet global mission requirements.
These aging aircraft fleets, many of which were procured
decades ago, are extremely expensive to maintain and lack
dedicated technology insertion programs to replace outdated
materials, product forms, and parts that dramatically increase
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and limit mission
availability.
The committee is aware that commercial aircraft fleets have
employed structural aluminum alloys, advanced manufacturing
processes, and joining technologies. The committee believes
that the low-risk transition of these proven commercial
technologies, products, and best practices could help the Air
Force to increase mission availability and reduce O&M costs for
the aging fleet. The committee encourages the Air Force to
leverage commercially developed and proven technologies and
products within its modernization and sustainment activities in
order to increase mission availability, reduce total ownership
costs, and resolve supply chain issues.
Rapid equipping and fielding initiatives
The committee recognizes that combat operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan have resulted in substantial improvements and
compression in the processes used to develop and field urgent
needs for combatant commanders, including organizational
clothing and individual equipment. Following the drawdown of
Afghanistan, the committee encourages the Department of Defense
to consider maintaining key elements of the Army Rapid Fielding
Initiative, the Rapid Equipping Force, and combatant commander
level purchasing authority to enable agile responses to future
threats.
Readiness support for unfunded requirements
The committee remains concerned that in an era of fiscal
constraints coupled with high operational tempo, the services
have chosen to fund readiness accounts below their requirements
and heavily rely upon Overseas Contingency Operations funding
to temporarily maintain operational readiness. Furthermore, as
a result of almost a decade of combat operations, backlogs of
deferred ship and aircraft depot maintenance remain unexecuted
by the services. The committee notes that a failure to address
this backlog for active and reserve ships and aircraft will
continue to jeopardize and erode materiel readiness, further
reduce the service life of the fleet, increase long-term
sustainment costs, and further increase strategic risk for the
Nation.
Despite these backlogs, the services continue to underfund
critical readiness accounts and fail to request any unfunded
requirements by the service chiefs in support of the fiscal
year 2013 budget request. The committee acknowledges the
Department of the Navy's budget request to fully fund their
ship depot maintenance account to meet 100 percent of their
known requirements, and encourages the Department to ensure
those funds are carried out for their budgeted purpose in
fiscal year 2013.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to examine and quantify the existing deferred depot maintenance
backlogs of the services and provide a report to the
congressional defense committees by March 30, 2013, with a plan
to address the existing deferred maintenance backlogs of the
services with proposed completion timelines and specific
funding amounts.
Report on Defense Science Board climate change recommendations
In October 2011, the Defense Science Board issued its
report on Trends and Implications of Climate Change for
National and International Security (``DSB report''). The DSB
report, prepared at the direction of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, describes
observable consequences of climate change and offers
recommendations on the role of the Department of Defense, and
other agencies, in adapting and responding to the effects on
U.S. national security interests.
The committee is interested in the disposition of the
recommendations contained in the DSB report and directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, by
November 1, 2012, a report addressing the recommendations
contained in the DSB report. Specifically, the Secretary's
report shall:
1. address the recommendations of the DSB report with
regard to the roles of the Department of Defense, the
military departments, and the combatant commands in
addressing the matters that the DSB report identified
as having adverse implications for national and
international security;
2. describe the actions taken on each of the DSB
recommendations on the role of the Department of
Defense; and
3. identify such changes in law, if any, that would
be required to fully implement the recommendations of
the DSB report.
In preparing the report, the Secretary should consider the
Intelligence Community Assessment number ICA 2012-08, ``Global
Water Security'', and any other reports or information he deems
appropriate, and shall consult with the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, the Director of
National Intelligence, and such other officials, agencies, or
organizations as he deems appropriate. The report shall be in
unclassified form, but may include a classified annex, if
warranted.
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 2013, as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Change from
FY 2012 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2013 FY 2012
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army.......................................... 562,000 552,100 552,100 0 -9,900
Navy.......................................... 325,700 322,700 322,700 0 -3,000
Marine Corps.................................. 202,100 197,300 197,300 0 -4,800
Air Force..................................... 332,800 328,900 329,597 697 -3,203
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 1,422,600 1,401,000 1,401,697 697 -20,903
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee supports the Department of Defense fiscal
year 2013 request for active-duty end strengths, with the
exception of additional Air Force end strength to support force
structure changes adopted by the committee. The funding to
support this end strength is contained in title XVII of this
Act.
The committee remains concerned about the impact of the
drawdown while the Army and Marine Corps in particular remain
engaged in ground combat operations. Adequate dwell time to
deployment ratios remain key to ensuring that service members
receive sufficient time at home to rejuvenate and recover
physically and mentally from arduous and repeated combat
deployments. In addition, sufficient time between deployments
allows units to repair equipment, train for the full spectrum
of future potential missions, and build the Nation's strategic
depth to respond to unforeseen contingencies. For these
reasons, insufficient dwell time undermines readiness and
increases risk.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include
with the budget submission in each of fiscal years 2014 through
2017 a statement of estimated deployment to dwell ratios for
both active and reserve component personnel for that fiscal
year based on expected operational demand and requested end
strength levels. The statement shall include the average unit
and individual deployed to dwell ratios, as of the end of the
fiscal year preceding the budget submission, for the active and
reserve components of the Army and Marine Corps. The statement
shall also identify the Army and Marine Corps military
occupational specialties and types of units which did not
achieve the respective service's dwell time goals. For each of
these specialties and units, the Army and Marine Corps shall
identify the average deployed to dwell ratios.
Additionally, for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2017,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include with
the budget submission an assessment of whether requested
reductions in active-duty end strength are reversible within 1
year, including through increased use of the reserve
components, if demand assumptions prove incorrect and
additional active forces are needed during that fiscal year.
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 2013, as shown
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Change from
FY 2012 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2013 FY 2012
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 358,200 358,200 358,200 0 0
Army Reserve.................................. 205,000 205,000 205,000 0 0
Navy Reserve.................................. 66,200 62,500 62,500 0 -3,700
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 39,600 39,600 39,600 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 106,700 101,600 106,435 4,835 -265
Air Force Reserve............................. 71,400 70,500 72,428 1,928 1,028
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 847,100 837,400 844,163 6,763 -2,937
Coast Guard Reserve........................... 10,000 9,000 9,000 0 -1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee supports the Department of Defense fiscal
year 2013 request for reserve component end strengths, with the
exception of additional Air National Guard and Air Force
Reserve end strength to support force structure changes adopted
by the committee. The funding to support this end strength is
contained in title XVII of this Act.
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 2013, as shown
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Change from
FY 2012 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2013 FY 2012
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 32,060 32,060 32,060 0 0
Army Reserve.................................. 16,261 16,277 16,277 0 16
Navy Reserve.................................. 10,337 10,114 10,114 0 -223
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 14,833 14,305 14,871 566 38
Air Force Reserve............................. 2,662 2,888 2,888 0 226
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 78,414 77,905 78,471 566 57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee supports the Department of Defense fiscal
year 2013 request for full-time support end strengths, with the
exception of additional Air National Guard full-time end
strength to support force structure changes adopted by the
committee. The funding to support this end strength is
contained in title XVII of this Act.
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 as of the last
day of fiscal year 2013, as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Change from
FY 2012 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2013 FY 2012
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve.................................. 8,395 8,445 8,445 0 50
Army National Guard........................... 27,210 28,380 28,380 0 1,170
Air Force Reserve............................. 10,777 10,283 10,716 433 -61
Air National Guard............................ 22,509 21,101 22,313 1,212 -196
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 68,891 68,209 69,854 1,645 963
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee supports the Department of Defense fiscal
year 2013 request for dual status technicians, with the
exception of additional Air Force Reserve and Air National
Guard technicians to support force structure changes adopted by
the committee. The funding to support this end strength is
contained in title XVII of this Act.
Fiscal year 2013 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 as of September 30, 2013,
as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Change from
FY 2012 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2013 FY 2012
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, as of September 30, 2013, as
shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Change from
FY 2012 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2013 FY 2012
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--Authorization 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]
Basic allowance for housing for full-time National Guard
transition.................................................... 6.0
Total......................................................... 6.0
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in
Military Personnel funding, pursuant to a legislative provision
regarding the payment of the basic allowance for housing for
Army and Air National Guard members transitioning between
active-duty service under title 10, United States Code, and
full-time National Guard service under title 32, United States
Code. The provision appears in title VI of this Act.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
Subtitle A--Officer Policy
Extension of relaxation of limitation on selective early discharges
(sec. 501)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 638a(d)(2) of title 10 to extend until December 31,
2018, the authority to convene selection boards to consider the
discharge of regular officers below the grade of lieutenant
colonel or commander who have served on active duty for at
least 1 year in their current grade, are not on a promotion
list, and are not eligible for retirement.
Exception to 30-year retirement for regular Navy warrant officers in
the grade of chief warrant officer, W-5 (sec. 502)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend section 1305(a) of title
10, United States Code, to increase the total active military
service a Navy warrant officer in the grade of chief warrant
officer, W-5, may serve from 30 to 33 years before being
statutorily retired for length of service.
Modification of definition of joint duty assignment to include all
instructor assignments for joint training and education (sec.
503)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend section 668(b)(1)(B) of
title 10, United States Code, to remove the limitations on the
types of instructors included in the definition of ``joint duty
assignment''. The current law excludes instructor positions
that may provide an officer significant experience in joint
matters from inclusion on the joint duty assignment list and
provides undue deference to Joint Professional Military
Education Phase II (JPME II) positions. This change would allow
the Department of Defense to judge all positions based on the
significant experience the position provides an officer in
joint matters.
The committee believes that instructor duty assignments at
the three service academies should be structured to the maximum
extent possible to allow officers who serve in these capacities
to accrue joint experience and credit. Completion of joint
professional military requirements while assigned to the
faculties or officer assignments at the academies should be
encouraged, and exchange tours and temporary assignments during
tours of duty at the service academies should be made available
in order to enhance the career progression of officers who
volunteer for instructor duty at the service academies.
Sense of Senate on inclusion of assignments as academic instructor at
the military service academies as joint duty assignments (sec.
504)
The committee recommends a provision that would express a
sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should
include assignments in which military officers are assigned as
instructors responsible for preparing and presenting academic
courses on the faculty of the United States Military Academy,
the United States Naval Academy, or the United States Air Force
Academy as joint duty assignments.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management
Authority for appointment of persons who are lawful permanent residents
as officers of the National Guard (sec. 511)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend section 313(b)(1) of
title 32, United States Code, to allow a lawful permanent
resident to be eligible for appointment as an officer into the
National Guard. Section 12201(b)(1) of title 10, United States
Code, currently makes lawful permanent residents eligible for
appointment as officers in the Reserves.
Reserve component suicide prevention and resilience program (sec. 512)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 1007 of title 10, United States Code, to codify the
Suicide Prevention and Community Healing and Response Program
for National Guard and reserve component members, and to move
it from within the Office for Reintegration Programs to the
Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities
Diversity in the armed forces and related reporting requirements (sec.
521)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a plan to
accurately measure the efforts of the Department of Defense to
achieve the goal of having a sustainable and dynamic pipeline
that yields a diverse officer and enlisted corps for the armed
forces that reflects the population of the United States
eligible for military service. The provision would require the
service secretaries, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, to develop a definition of diversity for their
respective military services that reflects the culture,
mission, and core values of each military service. Finally, the
provision would require biennial reports to the congressional
defense committees beginning July 1, 2013, through July 1,
2017, on the Department's progress in achieving its diversity
goals.
Modification of authority to conduct programs on career flexibility to
enhance retention of members of the armed forces (sec. 522)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend section 533 of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to include full-time active
guard and reserve members in the population eligible for the
career intermission pilot program, to clarify that accrued
leave may be carried forward through the period of inactive
service, and to clarify that participants in the program who
become ill or injured during their period of inactive service
may be processed for retirement or separation under chapters 55
and 61 of title 10, United States Code.
Authority for additional behavioral health professionals to conduct
pre-separation medical examinations for post-traumatic stress
disorder (sec. 523)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1177(a) of title 10, United States Code, to expand the
scope of providers that may conduct pre-administrative
separation medical examinations for post-traumatic stress
disorder to include licensed clinical social workers and
psychiatric nurse practitioners. Under current law, only
physicians, clinical psychologists, or psychiatrists may
perform these examinations. This language was requested by the
Department of Defense, and does not affect the statutory
requirement that these examinations be reviewed by appropriate
authorities responsible for reviewing and approving separation
cases.
Quarterly reports on involuntary separation of members of the armed
forces (sec. 524)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
service secretaries to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not
later than 30 days after the end of each quarter of the
calendar year in 2013 and 2014, a report on members of the
regular components who were involuntarily separated from active
duty. The report would include the total number of service
members involuntarily separated; the number of members
separated set forth by grade, by total years of service, and by
occupational specialty or rating; the number separated who
received involuntary separation pay or temporary retired pay;
the number who completed transition assistance programs
relating to future employment; and the average number of months
deployed to overseas contingencies by grade.
Review of eligibility of victims of domestic terrorism for award of the
Purple Heart and the Defense Medal of Freedom (sec. 525)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the service
secretaries, to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than
March 1, 2013, a report on the advisability of modifying the
criteria for the award of the Purple Heart to military
personnel, and the Defense Medal of Freedom to civilian
personnel, who are killed or wounded in a terrorist attack
within the United States that is determined to be inspired by
ideological, political, or religious beliefs that give rise to
terrorism.
Subtitle D--Military Justice and Legal Matters Generally
Clarification and enhancement of the role of the Staff Judge Advocate
to the Commandant of the Marine Corps (sec. 531)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend sections 806(a) (article
6(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), 5041, and
5046(a) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify and enhance
the role of the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the
Marine Corps. The provision would require that an officer
appointed as Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the
Marine Corps be appointed in the grade of major general and
authorize the Staff Judge Advocate to supervise the
administration of military justice and delivery of legal
assistance services in the Marine Corps, and provide
professional supervision over all Marine Corps judge advocates.
The committee notes that this provision reflects the
recommendations contained in the Final Report of the
Independent Review Panel to Study the Judge Advocate
Requirements of the Department of the Navy, dated February 22,
2011. The Independent Panel was established, in part, to
address concerns about the administration of military justice
in the Navy and Marine Corps. The committee is grateful for the
work of the Independent Panel and expects that the
clarification and enhancement of the role of the Staff Judge
Advocate to the Commandant will result in greater
accountability at every level for ensuring that the procedural
requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice are
complied with.
Additional information in reports on annual surveys of the
Committee on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 532)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subsection (c)(2) of section 946 of title 10, United States
Code (article 146 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), to
require the Code Committee to address the following additional
matters in its annual report: compliance with processing time
goals; cases in which court-martial convictions are reversed as
a result of command influence or denial of the right to a
speedy review; any provision of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice that is held unconstitutional; developments in
appellate case law relating to courts-martial involving
allegations of sexual misconduct; issues associated with
implementing legislatively directed changes to the Uniform Code
of Military Justice or the Manual for Courts-Martial; measures
implemented to ensure the ability of judge advocates to
competently participate as trial and defense counsel in, and
preside as military judges over, capital cases, national
security cases, sexual assault cases, and proceedings of
military commissions; and the independent views of the Judge
Advocates General and the Staff Judge Advocate to the
Commandant of the Marine Corps on the sufficiency of resources
within their service to perform military justice functions.
Subtitle E--Sexual Assault, Hazing, and Related Matters
Authority to retain or recall to active duty reserve component members
who are victims of sexual assault while on active duty (sec.
541)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 1209 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
service secretaries, upon the request of the member concerned,
to retain on active duty or return to active duty for
completion of a line of duty determination reserve component
members who are alleged victims of sexual assault while on
active duty.
Additional elements in comprehensive Department of Defense policy on
sexual assault prevention and response (sec. 542)
The committee recommends a provision that reflects the
recommendations of the Secretary of Defense and that would
require the Secretary of Defense to modify the revised
comprehensive policy for the Department of Defense sexual
assault prevention and response program required by section
1602 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal year 2011 (Public Law 111-183). The provision would
direct the following additions to existing policies: (1) a
requirement to establish within each military department an
enhanced capability for the investigation, prosecution, and
defense of designated special victim offenses, (2) a
requirement that each military department initiate and retain
for a period prescribed by the Secretary of Defense a record of
the disposition of allegations of sexual assault using forms
and procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, (3) a
requirement that all commanders and commanding officers receive
training on sexual assault prevention, response, and policies
before, or shortly after, assuming command, (4) a requirement
that all new members of the armed forces receive training
during initial entry training on sexual assault prevention and
response, (5) a requirement for specified military commands and
units to conduct periodic climate assessments, (6) a
requirement to post and widely disseminate information about
resources available to report and respond to sexual assaults,
and (7) a requirement to assign responsibility to receive and
investigate complaints of a violation of or failure to provide
the rights of a crime victim.
The committee believes that the recommendations of the
Secretary of Defense for changes to the Department's sexual
assault prevention and response program can and preferably
should be implemented through changes to existing regulations.
The complexity of the various matters addressed in this
provision, including, for example, the investigation and
adjudication of serious offenses under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice; the collection, retention, and use of
sensitive, and in some cases restricted access and personal
information; and the obligation to establish, enforce, and hold
military leaders accountable for compliance with training and
education requirements while operating under wartime
conditions, demand adequate time and flexibility for the
Department and the services to develop legally sufficient
policies. The Secretary of Defense and service leaders have
reiterated their commitment to the stated goals of preventing
and responding appropriately to sexual assaults; this is
demonstrated in the information provided in the Department's
recent Comprehensive Policy Report Update required pursuant to
section 1602(a) of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
This provision is fully consistent with the expectation they
will fulfill that commitment.
The committee is pleased that the Secretary of Defense has
exercised his authority to ensure that initial disposition
authority over specified sexual offenses is elevated to senior
commanders who are required to consult with a judge advocate.
This action will make certain that these serious offenses are
addressed by an appropriate level of command. The committee
looks forward to receiving regular briefings on the impact this
policy change has on the disposition of sexual assault cases.
Hazing in the armed forces (sec. 543)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
service secretaries, in consultation with their respective
service chiefs, to submit a report not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act on hazing in their
service.
The committee believes that preventing and responding to
incidents of hazing is a leadership issue and that the service
secretaries, assisted by their service chiefs, should be looked
to for policies and procedures that will appropriately respond
to hazing incidents.
Subtitle F--Education and Training
Inclusion of the School of Advanced Military Studies Senior Level
Course as a senior level service school (sec. 551)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend section 2151(b)(1) of
title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Senior Level
Course of the School of Advanced Military Studies of the Army
Command and General Staff College to offer Joint Professional
Military Education Phase II instruction and credit.
Modification of eligibility for associate degree programs under the
Community College of the Air Force (sec. 552)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend section 9315(b) of title
10, United States Code, to authorize enlisted members of the
armed forces other than the Air Force participating in joint-
service medical training and education or serving as
instructors in such training and education to participate in
associate degree programs of the Community College of the Air
Force.
Support of Naval Academy Athletic Programs (sec. 553)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 603 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of the Navy to enter into contracts, cooperative
agreements, and leases with the Naval Academy Athletic
Association (Association) for the purpose of supporting the
athletic and physical fitness programs of the Naval Academy.
The provision would authorize the Association to use Navy
property; the Navy to accept funds, supplies, and services from
the Association, and funds from the National Collegiate
Athletic Association; and the Association to enter into certain
licensing, marketing, and sponsorship agreements relating to
trademarks and service marks identifying the Naval Academy.
Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical accession programs
(sec. 554)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 2114(b) and 2121(c) of title 10, United States Code,
to eliminate the requirement that officers serve in the grade
of O-1 throughout their medical education. The provision would
authorize medical students attending the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) and students
participating in the armed forces Health Professions
Scholarship and Financial Assistance Programs (HPSP), while on
active duty, to serve in pay grade O-1, or in pay grade O-2 if
they meet specified promotion criteria prescribed by the
service secretary. The provision would also amend section 2004a
of title 10, United States Code, to provide that an officer
detailed as a student at a medical school would serve on active
duty in the same grade with the same entitlement to pay as
specified in section 2114(b) of title 10, United States Code.
The Academic Review Subcommittee of the Board of Regents of
the USUHS issued a report in June 2011, that found that the
current policy of requiring medical students at USUHS to serve
in the grade of second lieutenant or ensign until graduation
``fosters the misperception that medical officers are different
from their non-medical peers in matters of officership.'' This
Subcommittee recommended that medical students be promoted to
the rank of first lieutenant or lieutenant (junior grade) at
the end of the second year of their training ``if their
performance indicates they are ready to assume the duties of
the higher rank.''
The committee believes that requiring medical students who
are commissioned officers to remain in the rank of ensign or
second lieutenant throughout their medical education undermines
the goal of producing medical officers who are motivated and
dedicated to a career in the uniformed services and is
inconsistent with virtually every other military officer
development program. The service secretaries, in consultation
with the Surgeons General and the President of USUHS, should
establish criteria for promotion of medical students to the
rank of lieutenant (junior grade) and first lieutenant and
assign greater leadership responsibilities to those officers
who earn promotions while assigned to USUHS or the HPSP.
Authority for service commitment for Reservists who accept fellowships,
scholarships, or grants to be performed in the Selected Reserve
(sec. 555)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend section 2603(b) of title
10, United States Code, to authorize members of the Selected
Reserve to fulfill a service obligation incurred for acceptance
of a fellowship, scholarship, or grant by serving on active
duty for a period of at least three times the length of the
period of the education or training, or in the Selected Reserve
for a period of at least five times the length of the period of
the education or training.
Repeal of requirement for eligibility for in-state tuition of at least
50 percent of participants in Senior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps program (sec. 556)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend section 2107(c)(1) of
title 10, United States Code, to repeal the requirement that at
least 50 percent of midshipmen and cadets appointed under
section 2107 of title 10, United States Code, qualify for and
receive in-state tuition rates at their respective
institutions. This provision would provide greater latitude to
assign Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps participants to
institutions with educational programs that meet military
service needs.
Modification of requirements on plan to increase the number of units of
the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (sec. 557)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 548 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to modify the
requirement that the Secretary of Defense develop and implement
a plan to establish and support not less than 3,700 units of
the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) not later
than September 20, 2020, to a requirement for not less than
3,000 and not more than 3,700 units by September 20, 2020; to
authorize service secretaries to determine that all support
provided to youth development programs in the armed forces is
consistent with funding limitations and the achievement of the
objectives of such programs; and to change the annual reporting
requirement after 2012 to require reports not later than March
31, 2015, 2018, and 2020.
The committee recognizes the value of the JROTC program but
believes that the services require greater flexibility and
discretion in supporting not only JROTC but also various other
youth-oriented programs using appropriated funds. Meritorious
programs such as National Guard Youth Challenge, Naval Sea
Cadets Corps, Young Marines, Civil Air Patrol, STARBASE, and
others have received substantial amounts of appropriated funds
or in-kind support and the services should have great latitude
in deciding how best to use operations and maintenance funds
available to them in the current fiscal environment.
Information received from the Department of Defense in the
JROTC annual reports for 2009 and 2010 shows that the current
congressional mandate to establish over 250 new units by 2020
is not realistic and should be repealed. In this regard, the
committee applauds the initiative of the Department of the Navy
in establishing the National Defense Cadet Corps, an
alternative to JROTC, that has identical citizenship goals and
can be supported by many high schools that cannot meet the
requirements for establishing a JROTC unit. All of these units
and efforts should be considered in assessing the contribution
of the Department of Defense and the services to youth
development.
Consolidation of military department authority to issue arms, tentage,
and equipment to educational institutions not maintaining units
of the Junior ROTC (sec. 558)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend chapter 152 of title 10,
United States Code, to consolidate under one section of law all
military department authority to issue arms, tentage, and
equipment to educational institutions not maintaining units of
the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps. This provision
would require the educational institution to offer a course in
military instruction and to have a student body of at least 50
students in a grade above the eighth grade.
Modification of requirement for reports in Federal Register on
institutions of higher education ineligible for contracts and
grants for denial of ROTC or military recruiter access to
campus (sec. 559)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend section 983 of title 10,
United States Code, to delete the requirement for the Secretary
of Defense to publish in the Federal Register once every 6
months a list of each institution of higher education that is
ineligible for contracts and grants because the Secretary has
determined that the institution has a policy or practice that
prohibits or prevents the establishment of a Senior Reserve
Officer Training Corps (SROTC) unit or a student at that
institution from enrolling in a SROTC unit at another
institution of higher education. The Secretary would still be
required to publish a notice in the Federal Register whenever
the Secretary makes a determination that an institution should
be denied federal funds because the institution has a policy or
practice that prohibits or prevents the establishment of a
SROTC unit or a student at that institution from enrolling in a
SROTC unit at another institution of higher education.
Comptroller General of the United States report on the Reserve
Officers' Training Corps (sec. 560)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit to the
congressional defense committees not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act a report on (1) whether the
Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) programs of the
Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force are effectively
meeting current and projected requirements for newly
commissioned officers in the armed forces, and (2) the cost-
effectiveness and productivity of current ROTC programs.
The committee believes that the significant proposed
reductions in active-duty end strength require an objective
assessment of the Services' planning for reduced requirements
for newly commissioned officers. The United States General
Accounting Office completed such an assessment in May 1991, and
its report (``Less Need for Officers Provides Opportunity for
Significant Savings'') should be used as a model.
Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family Readiness
Matters
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 571)
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.
Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that
benefit dependents of members of the armed forces and
Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 572)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$25.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
continuation of the Department of Defense assistance program to
local educational agencies that are impacted by enrollment of
dependent children of military members and civilian employees
of the Department of Defense.
Amendments to the impact aid program (sec. 573)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend title
VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) to: simplify the calculation to determine
the payment owed to federal property districts; clarify how to
calculate eligible children displaced from housing located on
federal property; and accelerate the deadline for the
Department of Education to make final payments to districts.
Military spouses (sec. 574)
The committee recommends a provision that would codify and
expand authority for non-competitive hiring in the civilian
workforce of certain military spouses.
Modification of authority to allow Department of Defense domestic
dependent elementary and secondary schools to enroll certain
students (sec. 575)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2164 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
enrollment in Department of Defense (DOD) elementary and
secondary schools (DDESS) of dependents who have left a school
overseas pursuant to an authorized departure or evacuation
order, and whose safe haven location is within commuting
distance of a DDESS school. The provision would also authorize
the Secretary of Defense to allow enrollment of dependents of
active-duty service members located in the United States that
are transitioning from a DOD overseas school to be able to take
courses in the Department of Defense Education Activity Virtual
School.
Sense of Congress regarding support for Yellow Ribbon Day (sec. 576)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
Sense of Congress in support of Yellow Ribbon Day.
Subtitle H--Other Matters
Family briefings concerning accountings for members of the armed forces
and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as missing
(sec. 581)
The committee recommends a provision requested by the
Department of Defense 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.
Enhancement of authority to accept gifts and services (sec. 582)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 2601(i)(2), 1588(a), and chapter 155 of title 10,
United States Code, to authorize the acceptance of voluntary
services to facilitate accounting for missing persons and to
authorize military museums and military education programs to
enter into cooperative agreements with certain nonprofit
entities.
Service secretaries currently have authority to accept
voluntary services for military museums and military education
programs under section 1588 of title 10, United States Code,
and to accept gifts for the benefit of schools and museums
under section 2601 of title 10, United States Code. The
committee believes that the authority under section 1588 of
title 10, United States Code, to accept voluntary services from
any person includes authority to accept services from nonprofit
entities and academic institutions.
Clarification of authorized Fisher House residents at the Fisher House
for the Families of the Fallen and Meditation Pavilion at Dover
Air Force Base, Delaware (sec. 583)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend subsection (a) of
section 2493 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
primary next of kin, other family members, and escorts of
family members of service members who die while located or
serving overseas are authorized users of the Fisher House for
the Families of the Fallen and Meditation Pavilion at Dover Air
Force Base, Delaware.
Report on accuracy of data in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility
Reporting System (sec. 584)
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 not
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act a
plan to improve the completeness and accuracy of the data
contained in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting
System (DEERS).
The committee is concerned by the findings of the
Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General (IG) in its April
2012 report titled, ``Action is Needed to Improve the
Completeness and Accuracy of DEERS Beneficiary Data.'' The IG
found that the Defense Manpower Data Center, the organization
responsible for management of DEERS, lacked critical supporting
documentation needed to verify the eligibility of users of DOD
benefits, including health care, government facilities, and
other privileges. For example, the report states that ``DEERS
supporting documentation was not adequate to verify the
identity of 2.1 million beneficiaries in DEERS.'' The IG found
that discrepancies exist in the date of birth, gender, name, or
relationship of nearly 200,000 beneficiaries. The TRICARE
Management Activity identified 2,495 instances in which
ineligible users received health care benefits totaling $11.2
million.
Accuracy of the DEERS database is essential to ensure that
eligible users have timely access to health care and other DOD
benefits. Accuracy of eligibility data is equally necessary to
prevent fraud and abuse of critical Department of Defense
programs. The committee urges the Secretary to act promptly to
address the Inspector General's findings and recommendations.
Items of Special Interest
American Bar Association Military Pro Bono Project
The committee is grateful for the support provided to
military members by the American Bar Association's (ABA)
Military Pro Bono Project. Established in 2008, this initiative
of the ABA's Standing Committee on Legal Assistance for
Military Personnel has provided legal services in civil law
matters to over 1,000 service members, many of whom were
deployed overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Military Pro
Bono Project has provided military legal assistance attorneys
with a centralized referral point for pro bono counsel and
overseen an efficient complement to existing military legal
assistance programs. The Judge Advocates General of the Army,
Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, and the Staff Judge Advocate
to the Commandant of the Marine Corps have formally expressed
their thanks and appreciation for the ABA's role in developing
a network of legal support for service members where
representation is essential by civilian practitioners.
The committee believes that the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense should lead an effort to identify ways in
which the Department and the services can expand the support
they provide to the Military Pro Bono Project in a budget-
neutral manner. More can and should be done to supplement the
ongoing efforts of the ABA to consolidate state and local
programs aimed at expanding the availability of highly
qualified civilian attorneys with service members who are most
in need of pro bono assistance. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to study this issue and, in coordination
with the services, submit a letter report no later than March
1, 2013, discussing issues that should be considered and
recommended methods through which additional resources and
support can be given to the Military Pro Bono Project.
Army's sexual assault and special investigation training
The committee is aware of the efforts that the Department
of Defense has made to reduce sexual assaults across our
military services. The committee applauds these steps. However,
the committee recognizes that more work needs to be done to
reduce the occurrence of sexual assaults in the military. The
committee is particularly interested in how sexual assault
crimes are investigated, prosecuted, and defended.
The committee notes that the Army has established special
investigation courses at the Army's Military Police School at
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, that are dedicated to new
investigative and interviewing techniques, such as Forensic
Experiential Trauma Interviews. These new techniques can
possibly assist in prosecuting these often difficult cases. The
committee also notes that the Army has established a robust
career-spanning sexual assault training program for Army trial
lawyers and military justice practitioners. The steps the Army
has taken are commendable.
The committee encourages the Department and the military
services to adopt the best practices of the Army model and
immediately implement any and all lessons learned that are
viable to the Department as a whole or to a particular service.
Assessment of skills and abilities to enhance transition from military
service
The committee recognizes the value of using varied
approaches to prepare departing service members for transition
from military service to the classroom or civilian employment.
Members eligible for retirement, for example, may need
different tools than younger veterans who volunteered for
service after completing high school or after a few semesters
of college. For all new veterans, however, providing accurate
assessments of skills, aptitudes, and interests and matching
them with educational options or with the requirements of
potential employers can assist new veterans in choosing
successful career options. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense, as part of its ongoing effort to improve
existing transition assistance programs, to identify and
develop methods to assess the inventory of talents and
abilities of departing service members to match them with
viable career opportunities. Members should have available to
them, well before separation or retirement, testing vehicles
comparable in purpose to the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery, to align their interests and abilities with the needs
of public and private sector employers and appropriate
educational pursuits.
Crime Victims' Rights Act
The Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C 3771) affords
victims of crimes specific enumerated rights, most of which are
afforded by Department of Defense Directive 1030.01, April 13,
2004, to victims involved in cases tried by military courts-
martial. However, this Directive does not include the victim's
rights to be heard during public proceedings and the right to
proceedings free from unreasonable delay. In addition, there is
no specified procedure for victims to seek redress for failure
to be afforded these rights.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than January 7, 2013, on the
practicability and advisability of extending these additional
rights to victims involved in cases tried by courts-martial and
a means for seeking redress for failure to be afforded their
rights.
Department of Defense Inspector General oversight of investigations of
sexual assault
In June, 2011, the United States Government Accountability
Office (GAO) issued a report entitled: MILITARY JUSTICE:
Oversight and Better Collaboration Needed for Sexual Assault
Investigations and Adjudications (GAO-11-579) in which the GAO
recommended that the Department of Defense Inspector General
(DOD IG) develop and implement a policy that specifies
procedures for conducting sexual assault investigations and
establish clear goals, objectives, and performance data for
monitoring and evaluating the services' sexual assault
investigations and related training. The committee directs
that, not later than December 3, 2012, the Secretary of Defense
provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives a report on the DOD IG's
implementation of the GAO's recommendations, including an
implementation timeline.
Inclusion of synthetic drug compounds in the Uniform Code of Military
Justice
The committee recognizes the harmful impact that synthetic-
drug abuse poses on good order and discipline in the military.
Since 2008, there has been a rise in reported incidents of
military personnel disciplined due to the use, distribution,
and possession of synthetic-drugs, specifically synthetic
cannabinoids, synthetic cathinones, and synthetic psychedelic
hallucinogens. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General and
specifically the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), to report to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on issues that exist in prosecuting synthetic
drug offenses including the utility and impact of listing
synthetic-drug compounds as controlled substances in the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. The report should, at a
minimum, assess all compounds that have been found in DEA
domestic investigations. This report is required no later than
60 days after the enactment of this Act.
Joint Professional Military Education special areas of emphasis
The committee is aware that the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff provides annual guidance to the Joint
Professional Military Education (JPME) institutions regarding
special areas of emphasis for curriculum development and
teaching that span a broad range of topics that are of current
and longer-term strategic importance. In 2010, the guidance
recommended nine topical areas including Countering Violent
Extremism, Net-Centric Information Sharing, Strategic
Communication, Psychological Health Awareness, and Space as a
Contested Environment. However, it is not clear what feedback
and assessment mechanisms exist to ensure that the guidance is
being followed and to monitor the quality of the instruction.
The committee directs the Chairman to provide to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives no later than 180 days after the enactment of
this Act an assessment of the JPME institutions' implementation
of the Chairman's annual guidance.
Recruiting for cyber-related career fields
The committee believes that every effort must be made to
successfully recruit, train, and motivate for military service
young people with computer skills to operate and defend the
Department of Defense's computer networks and infrastructure.
The committee believes that innovative measures and incentives
should be taken to reach out to highly capable young men and
women to encourage them to volunteer for military service in
career fields specializing in cyber warfare and defense.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
letter report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives within 180 days of enactment
of this Act that describes current programs for identifying,
recruiting, training, and retaining young people with
outstanding computer skills for military service; reports any
human capital or specialty shortfalls in cyber defense career
fields; and describes bonuses or any non-traditional or non-
standard recruiting practices that are employed by the military
services to locate and recruit young people for cyber-related
career fields.
Report on assignment policies concerning women in the armed forces and
the characterization of certain combat-related service
The committee notes that in February 2012 the Department of
Defense released a report to Congress, required by section 535
of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), reviewing the laws and
policies restricting the service of female members of the armed
forces, and provided notice to Congress that the Department
would open positions in ground combat units at the battalion
level to women in occupational specialties for which they are
already qualified to serve, and would eliminate the so-called
co-location policy. According to the report, the changes will
result in over 14,000 positions being opened to women that were
previously denied. The committee believes this is a small step
in the right direction, but that more work must be done.
The committee understands that the Department and the
services continue to evaluate additional options that would
increase service opportunities by women, and that the services
must report to the Secretary of Defense later this year on the
viability of these options.
The committee strongly encourages the services to continue
these efforts. More than 75 percent of the Nation's youth do
not qualify for enlistment in the military. Maintaining
unnecessary barriers to service of those who are qualified and
motivated to serve magnifies the challenge in recruiting the
most qualified individuals for service in the All-Volunteer
Force. By limiting their use of the talents of female service
members, the Department and the services are handicapping
efforts to field the highest quality force possible.
Finally, the committee remains concerned that assignment
policies restricting service by women may continue to result in
inaccurate characterizations of their service in combat,
denying them earned benefits and in some cases needed care and
services. According to the Department of Defense, over 284,000
female service members have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan in
the past decade. Of those women, 881 have been wounded and 144
have died.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
the congressional defense committees no later than February 1,
2013, on its implementation of the policy changes announced in
the February 2012 report, its assessment and evaluation of
additional options to increase service and career opportunities
for women, and the current practice of the Department and the
services in recognizing, recording, and characterizing combat-
related service by female service members. The report should
make recommendations for regulatory and statutory change that
the Secretary considers appropriate to increase service
opportunities for women in the armed forces.
Report on specialized graduate programs
The committee recognizes the important role the Department
of Defense specialized graduate programs in engineering,
applied sciences, and management have in preparing military and
civilian personnel to perform and manage its technology
programs. With current and potentially continued budget
pressures, the committee encourages the Department to
thoroughly evaluate the requirement for and sufficiency of
these graduate programs. At a minimum, this review should
include the current and projected demand within the Department
for military and civilian personnel with advanced degrees in
engineering, applied sciences, and management; an analysis of
the sources by which the Department and the military services'
and civilian personnel obtain such advanced degrees; the need
for educational institutions under the Department to meet its
demands; the costs and benefits of maintaining such educational
institutions, including costs relating to directed research;
the ability of private institutions or distance-learning
programs to meet the Department's needs; existing
organizational structures, including reporting chains within
the services to manage the specialized graduate programs; and
recommendations for improving the ability of the Department to
identify, mange, and source its specialized graduate education
needs.
Requirement for Council of Governors views on legislative proposals
addressing child custody litigation involving members of the
armed forces
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to request
the views and recommendations of the Council of Governors
regarding legislative proposals to amend title II of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 521 et seq.)
(SCRA), or otherwise to establish federal law that would
prohibit State courts from considering the absence of a service
member by reason of deployment, or the possibility of
deployment, in determining the best interest of the child in
cases involving child custody.
As the Supreme Court noted in Ex parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586
(1890), over a century ago, ``the whole subject of the domestic
relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the
laws of the states and not to the law of the United States.''
The committee is concerned that the implications of
preemptive legislation that would extend beyond existing
procedural protections in the SCRA and that would create a
standard for adjudicating child custody disputes are not
warranted either by case law or the proactive legislation
enacted by more than 40 States. A federal legal standard would
preempt the efforts of the States over a matter traditionally
left to State courts. State Governors should be afforded the
opportunity to formally express their views prior to
congressional action being taken.
In presenting the request for views, the Secretary shall
provide the Council of Governors with the report required by
section 572 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) on child custody
litigation involving service of members of the armed forces and
current views of interested organizations and associations
including the Adjutants General Association of the United
States, the National Governors Association, and the Uniform Law
Commission of the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws, among others. The Secretary shall take
necessary steps to ensure that the views and recommendations of
the Council of Governors are submitted to the Committees on
Armed Services and Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than March 1,
2013.
Social media and operational security
The committee recognizes the increasing integration of
social media into the daily lives of Americans, to include the
military community. According to a recent survey, more than 90
percent of military families use social media with over three-
quarters of military families using social media to stay
connected to a deployed service member. If used judiciously,
social media platforms have the potential to reap positive
benefits.
Service members who use social media to communicate must
practice and maintain operational security. This is of
particular importance during deployments, as location, mission
and other sensitive information must be safeguarded, and not
shared via social media.
The committee applauds the Department of Defense (DOD) for
developing and releasing ``Social Media and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice'' and other guidance documents aimed to inform
and instruct service members, DOD civilians, and military
families as to the safe use of social media.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to devise
enterprise standards of best practice and procedures for: 1)
the use of social media by DOD employees and contractors; 2)
the development of secure DOD applications using social media
platforms; 3) the monitoring and enforcement of current DOD
rules and regulations; 4) a periodic review and revision of
current standards and procedures; and 5) the ability to educate
and disseminate these policies across DOD and the broader
military community.
The Secretary of Defense should deliver a report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the development of such standards no later
than 180 days after the enactment of this Act.
Special Operations Force Generation
The committee notes that the previous Commander of U.S.
Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) initiated a Pressure on
the Force and Families study to examine the effects of high
operational tempo on special operations personnel and their
families and provide recommendations on mitigating the stress
caused by repeated deployments. According to the current
Commander of USSOCOM, ``the lack of predictability resulting
from a demanding operational tempo'' was identified as a
primary source of stress on special operations personnel and
their families.
The committee supports the efforts of USSOCOM to develop a
Special Operations Force Generation (SOFORGEN) system to track
the operational tempo down to the level of the individual
special operator and provide for more predictable deployments.
The committee also supports USSOCOM's efforts to more
accurately account for training and other events that interrupt
time at home for special operations personnel. The committee
believes addressing these issues will improve USSOCOM's ability
to internally manage the readiness of its force and reduce the
stress on special operations personnel and their families.
The committee also understands the SOFORGEN system is
designed to provide USSOCOM with a tool to better forecast and
alert the services of enabling capabilities that will be needed
from the general purpose forces to support the training and
deployment of special operations personnel. This issue remains
of concern to the committee, especially in light of current
budget constraints and the potentially negative impact on the
maintenance of such capabilities by the services. The committee
reiterates the requirement in section 904 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) that the services and USSOCOM reach written agreement, not
later than 180 days after enactment, on the procedures by which
the availability of the enabling capabilities of the general
purpose forces will be synchronized with the training and
deployment cycle of special operations forces.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Rates of basic allowance for housing for Army National Guard and Air
National Guard members on full-time National Guard duty (sec.
601)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 403(g) of title 37, United States Code, to clarify that
the basic allowance for housing for members of the Army and Air
National Guards on full-time duty shall be based on their duty
location, and may not be modified upon the transition of the
member between active duty under title 10, United States Code,
and full-time National Guard duty under title 32, United States
Code, so long as the transition occurs without a break in
active service.
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.
Increase in amount of officer affiliation bonus for officers in the
Selected Reserve (sec. 616)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would increase the maximum annual
amount of the officer affiliation bonus for officers in the
Selected Reserve from $10,000 to $20,000.
Increase in maximum amount of incentive bonus for reserve component
members who convert military occupational specialty to ease
personnel shortages (sec. 617)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend section 326 of title 37,
United States Code, to increase the maximum amount of the
incentive bonus to convert military occupational specialty to
ease personnel shortages from $2,000 to $4,000 in the case of a
member of a reserve component.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
Permanent change of station allowances for members of Selected Reserve
units filling a vacancy in another unit after being
involuntarily separated (sec. 631)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 474 and 476 of title 37, United States Code, to
authorize the payment of travel and transportation allowances
for certain members of the Selected Reserve, their dependents,
and household effects when the member is involuntarily
separated due to force structure reductions between October 1,
2012, and December 31, 2018, and fills a critical vacancy in
another unit of the Selected Reserve that is at least 150 miles
from the member's residence.
Authority for comprehensive program for space-available travel on
Department of Defense aircraft (sec. 632)
The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
section 2641c to title 10, United States Code, that would
codify the authority of the Secretary of Defense to establish a
program to provide transportation to active and reserve
component members, retirees, and dependents on Department of
Defense (DOD) aircraft on a space-available basis beginning
January 1, 2014, or such earlier date as determined by the
Secretary of Defense pursuant to regulation.
The committee notes that the purpose of no-cost, space-
available travel on military aircraft is to assist military
members and their families in responding to emergent personal
circumstances and arduous duty conditions and to provide a
means of respite from the rigors of active duty for military
families, of both the active and reserve components. The option
to seek space-available travel has also been offered, at a
lower priority, to military retirees in recognition of their
careers of service and to authorized members of the Selected
Reserve. While the committee supports expanding the eligibility
for space-available travel, doing so should not adversely
affect the ability of military personnel to travel, for
example, on emergency leave or on environmental and morale
leave from remote duty locations. Expansion must also avoid
placing additional costs and burdens on the personnel and
facilities of the Air Mobility Command and the military
services.
Expansion of the space-available benefit should also be
preceded by the dissemination of accurate information about the
hardships aspiring space-available travelers are likely to
experience. The Department noted in its December 2007 report to
Congress on space-available travel that ``current eligible
Space-A travelers often experience disillusionment because of
the contrast between the perceived promises of Space-A travel
as a benefit of military service and the reality of arduous
conditions often encountered when using the system.'' The
committee believes that the Department should do more to
educate potential travelers on these realities and implement
policies that will continue to ensure safe and acceptable
conditions for eligible space-available travelers.
Subtitle D--Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits
Repeal of requirement for payment of Survivor Benefit Plan premiums
when participant waives retired pay to provide a survivor
annuity under Federal Employees Retirement System and
termination of payment of Survivor Benefit Plan annuity (sec.
641)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend sections 1450 and 1452
of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that military
retirees who have elected to participate in the Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) and who subsequently elect to waive their
military retired pay in favor of a survivor annuity under the
Federal Employees Retirement System, do not have to continue
paying premiums under SBP.
Repeal of automatic enrollment in Family Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance for members of the armed forces married to other
members (sec. 642)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1967 of title 38, United States Code, to remove service
members from automatic enrollment as a dependent under the
Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program when they
are insured on their own behalf under the Servicemembers' Group
Life Insurance program.
Subtitle E--Military Lending Matters
Enhancement of protections on consumer credit for members of the armed
forces and their dependents (sec. 651)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 987 of title 10, United States Code, to require that
vehicle title loans and payday loans, regardless of duration or
whether they are open or closed end, are included within the
definition of ``consumer credit'' contained in regulations
promulgated by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to that
section. The provision would also require the Secretary to
develop a policy to address the harmful effects of credit
offered to service members and their dependents through
installment loans through improved financial literacy and a
greater awareness of more beneficial sources of credit.
Additional enhancements of protections on consumer credit for members
of the armed forces and their dependents (sec. 652)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 987 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
the prohibition against charging out of state military members
higher interest rates on loans than what is allowed under State
law for residents of the State applies also to other forms of
consumer credit regulated by the Secretary of Defense under the
authority provided in section 987. The provision would also
require the Secretary of Defense to consult with federal
regulators at least once every 2 years in carrying out duties
under section 987.
The provision would be effective no later than 1 year from
the date of enactment of this Act, or such earlier date as
determined by the Secretary of Defense in regulation.
Relief in civil actions for violations of protections on consumer
credit extended to members of the armed forces and their
dependents (sec. 653)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 987 of title 10, United States Code, to provide for
civil liability in United States district court for violations
of consumer protections for service members and dependents
under that section.
Modification of definition of dependent for purposes of limitations on
terms of consumer credit extended to members of the armed
forces and their dependents (sec. 654)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend section 987(i) of title
10, United States Code, to conform the definition of dependent
under that section with the definition of dependent contained
in section 401(a) of title 37, United States Code.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Transitional compensation for dependent children who are carried during
pregnancy at time of dependent-abuse offense (sec. 661)
The committee recommends a provision proposed by the
Department of Defense that would amend section 1059 of title
10, United States Code, to include children who were carried
during pregnancy at the time of a dependent abuse offense
within the program to provide transitional compensation for
spouses and dependents of service members separated for such
offenses. The child would only become entitled to benefits
after birth. The provision would also clarify that spouses and
dependents who are not residing with the service member at the
time of the abuse offense are eligible for the compensation.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--TRICARE Program
Extension of TRICARE Standard coverage and TRICARE dental program for
members of the Selected Reserve who are involuntarily separated
(sec. 701)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1076d(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
coverage under TRICARE Standard for up to 180 days for members
of the Selected Reserve who are involuntarily separated without
cause under other than adverse conditions.
The provision would also amend section 1076a(a)(1) of title
10, United States Code, to authorize these same involuntarily
separated Selected Reserve members coverage under the TRICARE
dental program for at least 180 days.
Inclusion of certain over-the-counter drugs in TRICARE uniform
formulary (sec. 702)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1074g of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Department of Defense to place selected over-the-counter drugs
on the uniform formulary and make such drugs available to
eligible beneficiaries. An over-the-counter drug would only be
included on the uniform formulary if the Pharmacy and
Therapeutics Committee finds that the drug is cost-effective
and clinically effective.
The provision would also authorize the Secretary of Defense
to establish a copayment amount for these drugs, if
appropriate.
Expansion of evaluation of the effectiveness of the TRICARE program
(sec. 703)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 717(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) to update the reporting
requirements of the Department of Defense report, ``Evaluation
of the TRICARE Program: Access, Cost, and Quality,'' to reflect
the Department's practice of reporting on access, cost, and
quality broadly for the military health care system, not solely
for retirees as required by current law. The provision would
also require the Department to evaluate access, cost, and
quality for military dependent children under the age of 21 and
for dependents of active-duty members with severe disabilities
and special needs.
The committee appreciates the comprehensiveness of the
Department's annual evaluation of the TRICARE program. This
provision would enhance current reporting requirements to
include information on access, quality, and care for young
children and beneficiaries with special needs. Beneficiary
advocates have informed the committee that special needs
benefits under the Department's Extended Health Care Option
(ECHO) program can be difficult to access. Therefore, the
committee directs the Department to assess participation in the
ECHO program by eligible dependents with special needs, and to
explore options to provide more flexible benefits under that
program without increasing costs to the Department. The
Department should consult with ECHO-eligible families and work
groups created to address children's health care needs in its
assessment of the program. The committee expects the Department
to submit its report no later than February 1, 2013.
Subtitle B--Other Health Care Benefits
Use of Department of Defense funds for abortions in cases of rape and
incest (sec. 711)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
use of Department of Defense funds for abortions in cases of
rape or incest.
Availability of certain fertility preservation treatments for members
of the armed forces on active duty (sec. 712)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
fertility preservation treatments for service members who have
been diagnosed with a condition for which the recommended
course of treatment could cause infertility.
Modification of requirements on mental health assessments for members
of the armed forces deployed in connection with a contingency
operation (sec. 713)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1074m(a) of title 10, United States Code, to align
mandatory person-to-person mental health assessments for
certain deployed service members with other existing health
assessments. The provision would also limit the pre-deployment
mental health assessments required under this section to those
service members who will be subjected or exposed to operational
risk factors during deployment in a contingency operation, and
for post-deployment assessments to those who were exposed to
operational risk factors during deployment in a contingency
operation. The committee expects that the determination of
operational risk by the Secretary of Defense shall include any
service member at such risk, regardless of military occupation,
to include support personnel, who may be exposed to such risk
in support of a contingency operation.
Subtitle C--Health Care Administration
Clarification of applicability of certain authority and requirements to
subcontractors employed to provide health care services to the
Department of Defense (sec. 721)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1089(a) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify
that subcontractors providing health care under personal
services contracts are covered for medical malpractice purposes
under the Federal Tort Claims Act in the same manner as
government employees providing the same services, as requested
by the Department of Defense.
Research program to enhance Department of Defense efforts on mental
health in the National Guard and reserves through community
partnerships (sec. 722)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out a research program with
community partners to enhance Department of Defense efforts in
research, treatment, education, and outreach on mental health,
substance use disorders, and traumatic brain injury in National
Guard and reserve members, their families, and their
caregivers.
Subtitle D--Reports and Other Matters
Reports on performance data on Warriors in Transition programs (sec.
731)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act and every 180 days
thereafter until September 30, 2017, data on the longitudinal
status of service members participating in a Warriors in
Transition program. The data would document the performance of
the Department of Defense in addressing the physical health,
mental and behavioral health, educational and vocational
aptitude and capabilities, and other appropriate matters, at
specified periods during the members' participation in the
program.
Independent entities such as the Department of Defense
Inspector General, Government Accountability Office, and the
Department of Defense Recovering Warrior Task Force continue to
identify problems faced by service members and their families
with access to needed medical care, including care for post-
traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, lengthy processing
times for transition to civilian life, inadequate communication
among care managers, and a confusing plethora of support
programs that lack specific measures of effectiveness. The
committee believes that the service secretaries should develop
quantifiable and transparent performance goals and measures to
achieve high quality, fairness and comprehensive support of
service members who incur wounds, illness, or injury in service
to our country.
Report on Department of Defense support of members of the armed forces
who experience traumatic injury as a result of vaccinations
required by the Department (sec. 732)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the secretaries of
the military departments, to report on the adequacy and
effectiveness of the policies, procedures, and systems of the
Department of Defense in providing support to service members
who experience traumatic injury as a result of a vaccination
required by the Department.
Plan to eliminate gaps and redundancies in programs of the Department
of Defense on psychological health and traumatic brain injury
among members of the armed forces (sec. 733)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
on a plan to streamline Department of Defense (DOD) programs
that address psychological health and traumatic brain injury.
The committee is concerned about the effective management
of programs and resources provided to the Department for
psychological health, including post traumatic stress, and
traumatic brain injury. In 2011, a technical report prepared
for the Office of the Secretary by the RAND Corporation,
``Programs Addressing Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain
Injury Among U.S. Military Servicemembers and Their Families,''
identified more than 200 Department of Defense sponsored or
funded programs to address psychological health and traumatic
brain injury, and found ``duplication of effort across
programs, both within and across branches of service.'' The
report concluded that although the attention given to programs
to address these conditions is laudable, ``the proliferation of
programs creates a high risk of a poor investment of DoD
resources,'' as a result of both duplication of effort and
unproven approaches. In January 2012, the Government
Accountability Office published a report (GAO-12-154) citing
both a lack of quality control mechanisms and accountability
for psychological health and traumatic brain injury
expenditures within the Department, and the ``lack of a single
organization devoted to ensuring that accurate and timely data
are available on DOD's psychological health and traumatic brain
injury activities or coordinating these activities.''
The committee recognizes that care for psychological
conditions and traumatic brain injury will be an enduring
requirement for years to come, and encourages the Secretary to
promptly take action to ensure that service members and their
families have access to programs of proven quality and
effectiveness as they recover from illness and injury sustained
in service to their country. In addition, the committee urges
the Department to continue to make effective use of social
media opportunities to improve access to Department resources,
including those for psychological health and traumatic brain
injury.
Report on implementation of recommendations of the Comptroller General
of the United States on prevention of hearing loss among
members of the armed forces (sec. 734)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the
status of implementation of the recommendations of the
Comptroller General of the United States in the report
``Hearing Loss Prevention: Improvements to DOD Hearing
Conservation Programs Could Lead to Better Outcomes'' (GAO-11-
114, January 2011).
The committee notes that the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2013 includes $12.6 million to support activities
of the Hearing Center of Excellence, and is encouraged that the
Center's concept of operations reflects a commitment to
``create efficiencies, reduce redundancies and reduce costs''
within existing hearing conservation programs. The committee
expects the Secretary of Defense to prioritize efforts
throughout the Department to enhance training, treatment, and
research to reduce the incidence of preventable hearing
impairments among service members.
Items of Special Interest
Comptroller General study on Department of Defense health care
contracting
The Department of Defense (DOD) budget for the Unified
Medical Program has grown rapidly in recent years. According to
the President's budget request for fiscal year 2013, health
care represents 10 percent of the overall DOD top-line. In
light of this growth in costs, it is imperative that DOD
identify opportunities for savings and efficiencies wherever
possible.
Private sector care contracts employed by DOD to deliver
health care under its TRICARE program are a potential avenue
for identifying savings and efficiencies. In recent years,
beneficiaries have relied more on the purchased-care system of
civilian providers than on DOD's direct-care system of military
hospitals and clinics. In its 2012 ``Report to Congress:
Evaluation of the TRICARE Program'', DOD reported that about 65
percent of total inpatient admissions and 57 percent of total
outpatient visits were in the purchased-care system.
Although TRICARE remains primarily a benefits program, DOD
utilizes contractors to manage the program, as well as to
provide pharmacy and dental benefits. DOD also uses other
contracts to deliver health care to its beneficiary population,
including contracts mandated by section 722 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for 1997 (Public Law 104-201) with
designated providers under the Uniformed Services Family Health
Plan.
TRICARE management contracts are of significant size within
the Department. Although most of the money flows through to
TRICARE providers in the form of reimbursements for medical
services provided to beneficiaries, there is a major
contracting component to the program. The third generation of
TRICARE management contracts, which was to have been
implemented in 2010, has yet to be fully implemented in all
regions due to bid protests.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a
comprehensive review of DOD's private sector care contracts. At
a minimum, the review should assess the following:
How requirements are determined and to what
extent are they consistent within and among the TRICARE
regions and all categories of beneficiaries;
How efficient DOD's health care contracting
procedures are, and whether contracting personnel are
adequately prepared to contract for health care
services of high quality at reasonable cost;
Whether the processes for determining
requirements and entering into contracts are
appropriately transparent;
What opportunities exist for savings and
efficiencies in DOD health care contracting, including
but not limited to opportunities for consolidation,
streamlined processes, collaboration with the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and increased
competition; and
The extent to which health care contracting
under TRICARE is conducted in a manner consistent with
proscriptions and principles of DOD's ``Better Buying
Power'' initiative.
The committee expects the Comptroller General's analysis to
include an assessment of the planning activities that are
currently taking place for the fourth generation of TRICARE
management contracts and make appropriate recommendations for
any improvements that should be considered for incorporation
into the development of requirements and the solicitation
process for these contracts. The committee further expects the
Comptroller General to engage in dialogue with stakeholders,
including contractors, designated providers and beneficiary
organizations in the course of assessing DOD health care
contracting requirements and procedures.
Cooperative health care agreements
Under current law (10 U.S.C. 1073 note), the Secretary of
Defense is authorized to enter into cooperative health care
agreements between military installations and local and
regional non-military health care entities. The committee
understands that the implementation of this authority is
delegable, including certain actions taken by the military
departments.
The committee believes that, should the Secretary of
Defense choose to delegate this authority to enter into
cooperative health care agreements with local health care
entities, such delegation should be exercised with appropriate
oversight and coordination in order to ensure uniform standards
for the continued provision of a quality health care benefit
across each of the services.
Health care provider appointment and compensation authorities
The committee remains concerned about gaps in shortage
category and critical need health care occupations in the
Department of Defense (DOD), and believes that the current and
projected increases of nationwide shortfalls in certain health
care occupations should not preclude the delivery of timely,
high-quality care to service members, including wounded
warriors. Several authorities currently exist that the DOD can
exercise on its own, or with the approval of the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM), to address the challenges in
maintaining a trained, experienced workforce in critically
needed health care occupations. These include the authority to
appoint and pay for critical health care personnel under
chapter 74 of title 38, United States Code, as authorized for
DOD use by section 1599c(a) of title 10, United States Code,
and the discretionary use of classification, pay, and hours of
work provisions under chapter 74 of title 38. It is the
committee's understanding that under the delegation agreement
with OPM to exercise this authority, DOD may use the Department
of Veterans Affairs' title 38 authorities to establish special
rates to recruit and retain employees in a broad range of
health care occupations, as well as approve alternative work
schedules and special premium payments for nurses and other
health care employees, establish qualifications and a
qualifications-based grade system for nurses and other types of
health care occupations, and pay nurses locality pay.
Utilization of this authority is not limited to physicians and
dentists. Finally, OPM has the authority to establish special
pay rates under section 5305 of title 5, United States Code, if
requested by the Department of Defense.
The committee is concerned that authorities which could
improve hiring and compensation of health care personnel may be
exercised inadequately or unevenly, possibly creating disparity
in access to care for wounded, ill, or injured service members
or resulting in unnecessary turnover of needed health care
professionals. The committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense and the Director of OPM to consider the use of all
existing authorities for critical health care personnel
shortage fields to the maximum extent necessary to attract and
retain high quality providers, thereby ensuring timely access
to care and treatment for service members and their families
and support of the medical readiness goals of DOD.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Director of OPM, to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House of
Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
no later than 120 days after enactment of this Act that
describes the use of these authorities, and to conduct an
assessment of additional authorities that may be needed. The
report shall include a side-by-side comparison of authorities
available to and exercised by the Department of Veterans
Affairs and within the Department of Defense, including each of
the military services, for each health care shortage category
or critical need occupation. The Secretary of Defense shall
update the report annually by September 30, until such time
that the Secretary can certify that no shortage category
occupation has existed for at least 365 days.
Medication therapy management
The committee recognizes that the cost of providing health
care to service members, retirees, and their families through
the TRICARE program continues to rise, as does the cost of
providing health care in the private sector, and believes that
initiatives to increase the quality of patient health while
reducing the cost of care should be explored. An article
published in the New England Journal of Medicine (April 29,
2010, Vol. 362 No. 17) indicates that ``as many as half of all
patients do not adhere faithfully to their prescription-
medication regimens,'' resulting in over $100.0 billion each
year being spent on avoidable hospitalizations.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
currently provides a broad range of medication therapy
management (MTM) services through many of its military
treatment facilities, and that these services may improve
patient health and clinical outcomes while lowering total
health care costs. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of its
MTM services, to include a discussion of MTM implementation to
date, cost savings realized from utilization of MTM thus far,
plans for future expansion, and an assessment of the
feasibility and advisability of including this evolving
standard of care into the broader TRICARE pharmacy program. The
committee expects the Department to submit its report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives no later than February 1, 2013.
Standards for production and performance of prostheses and prosthetic
sockets for military amputees
The committee applauds the work of Department of Defense
medical and technical personnel who, in partnership with
industry, are providing superior individualized prostheses to
military amputees at each Department of Defense location of the
Extremity Injury and Amputation Center of Excellence
established pursuant to section 723 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for 2009 (Public Law 110-
417).
According to a published report in The Journal of Trauma
Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, Volume 68, Number 6, June
2010, ``The number of amputees returning to duty has increased
significantly, from 2.3% to 16.5%, due to advancements in
combat casualty care and the establishment of centralized
amputee centers.'' The committee believes that as an increasing
number of service members remain on active duty and even deploy
with prostheses, it is of vital importance that the Department
of Defense have uniform standards of production and performance
for prostheses and prosthetic sockets.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department to
continue clinical and technological research and development
for prostheses, which are critical to enabling service members
who have lost one or more limbs in service to our country to
achieve their highest goals for recovery, rehabilitation, and
performance.
In light of these objectives, 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 180 days after the enactment of this Act,
outlining:
(1) The establishment or verification of consistent,
acceptable standards of quality for the design and
fabrication of military prostheses and prosthetic
sockets;
(2) The identification of standards for human
performance using limb loss and limb salvage prostheses
and prosthetic socket performance based on the
individual mobility level, size, weight, functional
goals, and occupational specialty of members of the
armed forces;
(3) The processes in place for the demonstration and
validation of prostheses and prosthetic socket
manufacturing techniques that reduce weight, reduce
cost, and strengthen key load-bearing areas of the
socket to reduce the risk of failure and enhance
mobility; and
(4) An overview of the Department's efforts to
document each prosthetic, prosthetic socket, alignment,
and associated fabrication settings for all military
amputees in their electronic health record.
TRICARE efficiencies
The committee acknowledges efforts undertaken by the
Department of Defense to achieve internal efficiencies, such as
decreasing administrative overhead, provider payment reform,
purchasing pharmaceuticals, supplies and equipment at lower
prices, and providing incentives for beneficiaries to obtain
prescriptions from the Department's mail order pharmaceutical
program. These have already resulted in significant savings to
the Department.
The committee notes with concern the Comptroller General
report of April 2012, ``Defense Health Care: Applying Key
Management Practices Should Help Achieve Efficiencies within
the Military Health System,'' (GAO-12-224) which faulted the
Department for developing specific plans, goals and
accountability for only 1 of 11 health care initiatives aimed
at slowing the growth of health care costs.
The committee acknowledges that the Department's efforts to
streamline the military health system governance and
consolidate common functions, as described in its March 2012
``Report on the Governance of the Military Health System'',
were delayed by section 716 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81)
which prohibited the Secretary from reorganizing the military
health system until 120 days after the Comptroller General of
the United States submits a report to Congress evaluating
options considered and potential costs or cost savings.
However, the committee expects the Secretary to continue to
work toward increased efficiencies to assure that Department
goals to reduce health care cost growth are achieved. Elsewhere
in this report, the committee directs the Comptroller General
to undertake an assessment of Department health care
contracting requirements and processes in order to identify
additional efficiencies.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs
Limitation on use of cost-type contracts (sec. 801)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense (DOD) from using cost-type contracts
for the production of major defense acquisition programs,
unless the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, after consultation with the Director
of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, certifies to
Congress that a cost-type contract is needed to provide a
required capability in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Section 818 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364)
already limits the circumstances under which DOD may enter a
cost-type contract for the development of major defense
acquisition programs. However, no comparable limitation
currently exists for the production of such programs.
The committee takes the position that DOD should select the
contract type for a production program that is consistent with
the level of program risk for the program. Consistent with
sound acquisition practice, however, very few major defense
acquisition programs should be in production unless program
risk has already been reduced to a manageable level. The
committee expects the Department to ensure that the authority
to waive this requirement is exercised only in exceptional
circumstances.
Acquisition strategies for major subsystems and subassemblies on major
defense acquisition programs (sec. 802)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that the acquisition strategy
for each major defense acquisition program (MDAP) provides for
robust competition at the subsystem and subassembly level by
breaking out major subsystems and subassemblies, where
appropriate, for separate competition.
Section 202(c) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) requires that the Department of
Defense (DOD) to ensure competition, or the option of
competition, at both the prime contract level and the
subcontract level of MDAPs, but does not specifically address
the break-out of subsystems and subassemblies. In some cases,
the government's interest in competition is likely to be best
served if DOD runs its own competition for a subsystem or
subassembly and provides it to the prime contractor as
government-furnished equipment.
Management structure for developmental test and evaluation (sec. 803)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
oversight and supervisory responsibilities of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and
Evaluation (DASD-DT&E) over the chief developmental testers and
lead developmental test evaluation organizations of the
military departments.
The DASD-DT&E is responsible for establishing policies and
guidance for, and monitoring and reviewing the performance of,
all developmental test components of the Department of Defense
(DOD). The committee expects the components to adhere to
relevant guidance established by the DASD-DT&E and to promptly
transmit any records or data (including but not limited to
quick-look assessments and other internal reports and
supporting data prepared by the program offices, chief
developmental testers, and lead developmental test evaluation
organizations of the military departments) directly to the
DASD-DT&E upon request.
The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (WSARA)
(Public Law 111-23) established the position of DASD-DT&E
because of a recognition that developmental testing and
evaluation plays a critical role in identifying and correcting
problems in major weapon systems early, before they lead to
excessive cost overruns and schedule delays. For this reason,
the committee is troubled that DOD does not appear to have
given adequate attention to shortcomings identified by DASD-
DT&E in developmental testing.
Since the enactment of WSARA, the DASD-DT&E has concluded
on the basis of assessments of operational test readiness
(AOTR) that four major weapons programs were not ready to
proceed to initial operational testing and evaluation (IOT&E).
In each case, the program was allowed to proceed to IOT&E
despite the findings of the AOTR, and in each case, IOT&E
identified significant problems that could and should have been
corrected at an earlier stage of the program.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to report to the
congressional defense committees on each case in fiscal year
2012 and fiscal year 2013 in which a major defense acquisition
program proceeds to IOT&E despite an AOTR finding that it is
not ready to proceed to this stage. For each such case, the
report should explain why the program proceeded to IOT&E
despite the findings of the AOTR; what aspects of the approved
testing and evaluation master plan had to be set aside to
enable the program to proceed to IOT&E under these
circumstances; how the program addressed the specific areas of
concern raised in the AOTR; and whether IOT&E identified any
significant shortcomings in the program. The required report
should be provided to the congressional defense committees by
not later than 60 days after the end of fiscal year 2013.
Assessments of potential termination liability of contracts for the
development or production of major defense acquisition programs
(sec. 804)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics (USD-AT&L) to provide the congressional defense
committees with an assessment of potential termination
liability for each contract entered by the Department of
Defense (DOD) for the development or production of a major
defense acquisition program for which the USD-AT&L is the
milestone decision authority.
In recent years, DOD decisions to terminate contracts for
the development or production of major defense acquisition
programs--such as the VH-71 Presidential helicopter replacement
program, the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, and the
Medium Extended Air Defense System program--have raised
questions about the relative costs and benefits of program
termination and program completion. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed this issue in 2008 and
concluded that it cost more to complete programs than to
terminate them and that contract termination costs were
generally not a major factor in DOD decisions to terminate
weapons programs.
GAO concluded that program terminations could be a valuable
tool to ``create trade space'' in limited budgets and respond
to to long-term fiscal imbalances and unexpected events. To
make the most effective use of this tool, GAO stated, decision-
makers ``need to be able to anticipate and plan for possible
terminations and have a sound understanding of costs, benefits,
and legal requirements.'' For this reason, GAO recommended that
DOD review, and as needed amend, guidance on terminations
across all the military departments and defense agencies to
ensure that the guidance identifies the conditions under which
it would be appropriate to end programs or contracts, and
provides knowledge needed to use terminations as an investment
portfolio tool.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to update the
2008 GAO report with an assessment of: (1) the extent to which
DOD has implemented the recommendations of the 2008 report; (2)
the actual costs and savings resulting from the termination of
programs reviewed in the 2008 report and the extent to which
technologies and facilities from these programs were
effectively leveraged or transferred to other programs; and (3)
the estimated costs and benefits of the termination of the VH-
71 and FCS programs.
Technical change regarding programs experiencing critical cost growth
due to change in quantity purchased (sec. 805)
The committee recommends a provision that would correct a
paragraph reference in section 2433a of title 10, United States
Code, as amended by section 831 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), to
clarify that the Secretary of Defense is not required to
conduct continuing reviews of programs that exceed thresholds
for critical cost growth due only to a change in the quantity
of items to be purchased.
Repeal of requirement to review ongoing programs initiated before
enactment of Milestone B certification and approval process
(sec. 806)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 205(b) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of
2009 (WSARA) (Public Law 111-23), as recommended by the
Department of Defense (DOD). Section 205(b) requires the annual
review of programs initiated before the enactment of the
certification requirements in section 2366b of title 10, United
States Code, in 2006, to determine whether or not they meet
certification requirements under that section.
The committee notes that section 819(a) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) repealed section 204(c) of WSARA, which established the
requirement for so-called ``catch-up'' certifications for
programs initiated prior to the enactment of WSARA. As DOD
points out, however, the repeal of section 204(c) does not
reduce the burden on the Department unless the ``essentially
redundant obligation under section 205(b)'' is also repealed.
Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management
One-year extension of temporary limitation on aggregate annual amount
available for contract services (sec. 821)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the goals and objectives established in section 808 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81), including: (1) a cap on spending for
contract services at the fiscal year 2010 level; (2) a cap on
contractor labor rates and overhead rates at fiscal year 2010
levels; (3) an approval requirement for contracts and task
orders exceeding fiscal year 2010 levels; and (4) a reduction
in funding for staff augmentation contracts and contracts for
functions closely associated with inherently governmental
functions.
The committee is encouraged by measures that the military
departments have taken to achieve efficiencies in the area of
contract services.
Last year the committee noted that the Air Force, which has
been more aggressive than the other military departments in
implementing required management structures for contract
services, conducted a disciplined review of $5.6 billion of
service contracts over the last year and identified $1.4
billion of expected savings over an 8-year period. This year,
the Air Force informed the committee that it has achieved an
additional $3.8 billion in savings over the future years
defense program in the area of Weapon System Sustainment alone.
The Army has now established portfolio managers for
functional categories of services and instituted a management
review process through which it has identified potential cost
savings of $4.6 billion in the base budget.
The committee is also aware that in October 2011, the Naval
Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) instituted a Services Requirements
Review Board--commonly referred to as a ``services court'' or
``contractor court''--pursuant to which senior officials of the
command have assumed personal responsibility for reviewing all
significant services contracts in the command to identify
opportunities for service acquisition efficiencies, process
improvements, and cost savings. The process also includes
``tripwires'' to trigger more in depth review of particular
contracts. The committee understands that this new process has
enabled NAVSEA to achieve savings of as much as 20 percent on
its service contracts in the first year alone and that the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
Acquisition has directed that the process be institutionalized
across the Navy.
The committee concludes that the Navy process is a ``best
practice'' and urges all of the military departments and
defense agencies to undertake similar initiatives to achieve
greater efficiencies in the area of services contracting.
Prohibition of excessive pass-through contracts and charges in the
acquisition of services (sec. 822)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense (DOD) from awarding a contract for
the performance of services (other than a firm, fixed price
contract that is either competitively awarded or for commercial
services) unless the contractor agrees that at least 50 percent
of the direct labor on the contract will be performed by the
contractor or by a subcontractor that is specifically
identified in the contract.
Section 852 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) was
intended to address the problem of excessive ``pass-through''
charges--charges for profit and overhead from a contractor who
provides little or no value added on work performed by a lower-
tier contractor or subcontractor. Despite the enactment of this
legislation, DOD continues to pay profit and overhead for
multiple layers of contractors in cases where work is performed
by lower-tier contractors and subcontractors--in some cases,
because prime contractor overhead is considered ``value
added,'' in other cases, because prime contractor overhead and
profits are built directly into labor rates included in the
contract.
The committee notes that section 15(o) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. section 644(o)) already requires that
small businesses agree to perform at least 50 percent of the
work under their DOD contracts. The committee concludes that a
similar standard applicable to contractors of all sizes would
serve to protect DOD from paying multiple layers of contractors
for profit and overhead on work performed by subcontractors.
Availability of amounts in Defense Acquisition Workforce Development
Fund for temporary members of workforce (sec. 823)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1705 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the
extent to which the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development
Fund (DAWDF) may be used to support temporary members of the
acquisition workforce. Under the amendment, DAWDF funds could
be used for temporary personnel only for the limited purpose of
providing training for such personnel in the performance of
acquisition-related functions and duties. The provision would
also amend section 1705 to extend direct hiring authority for
the acquisition workforce for an additional 2 years.
The committee notes that senior acquisition officials of
the Department of Defense (DOD) have uniformly cited DAWDF as
an essential tool to strengthen the acquisition workforce and
help the Department overcome significant shortcomings in the
management and oversight of its contracts. The committee
continues to believe that robust funding of the DAWDF will
result in improved DOD acquisition practices and substantial
long-term savings.
At the same time, however, the committee notes that the
funding levels in section 1705(d)(2)(C) were established in
section 832 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), to reflect the
requirements of the hiring plan announced by the Secretary of
Defense in 2009, and do not take into account the substantial
changes in DOD funding and force structure that have taken
place since that time.
The committee notes that the Statement of Managers
accompanying H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2012 (Public Law 112-74), directed the Secretary of Defense to
reassess the annual funding floors for the DAWDF and provide
recommendations for appropriate funding levels to the
congressional defense committees within 180 days of enactment.
The committee endorses this review and concludes that while DOD
has a continued need for DAWDF funding, funding levels should
be established on the basis of a 2012 hiring plan, not a 2009
hiring plan.
Department of Defense policy on contractor profits (sec. 824)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to review the profit guidelines for
Department of Defense (DOD) contracts to ensure an appropriate
link between contractor profit and contractor performance.
The committee understands that contractor profit levels
play an important role in attracting and sustaining investment
in the defense industry. In a time of constrained budgets,
however, DOD cannot afford to pay excessive profits to
contractors who perform poorly. Rather, the Department must use
all available tools--including profit policy--to incentivize
the timely and cost-effective delivery of quality products and
services by DOD contractors.
Section 814 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364)
required the Secretary to ensure that award and incentive fees
are linked to acquisition outcomes (defined in terms of program
cost, schedule, and performance) in DOD acquisition programs.
The committee concludes that a similar link is needed between
contractor profits and contractor performance.
Modification of authorities on internal controls for procurements on
behalf of the Department of Defense by certain non-defense
agencies (sec. 825)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the
requirement for the Department of Defense Inspector General to
submit additional follow-up reports on internal controls for
procurements made by the Department of Defense through other
federal agencies. The Inspector General has indicated that
previous reviews have shown a significant decrease in reported
problems with regard to such procurements. The committee
concludes that the Inspector General should have greater
flexibility to direct audit resources to areas in which they
are most needed.
Extension of pilot program on management of supply-chain risk (sec.
826)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
2 years the pilot authority for the Department of Defense (DOD)
to manage supply-chain risk under section 806 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383).
The committee is aware that DOD has performed a number of
exercises to develop effective supply-chain risk management
strategies and that lessons learned from these exercises will
be incorporated into implementing guidance that is expected to
be issued this summer. The committee understands the complexity
of these issues, but is disappointed by the projected 18-month
delay in the issuance of this guidance.
The committee urges DOD to issue guidance and begin the
implementation of section 806 as soon as possible, so that this
authority can be used as intended, to reduce supply-chain risk
in the acquisition of sensitive information technology systems
that are incorporated into intelligence or cryptologic systems,
are used in command and control of military forces, or form an
integral part of a weapon system.
Subtitle C--Amendments Relating to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations
Applicability of Truth in Negotiations Act to major systems and related
subsystems, components, and support services (sec. 841)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Department of Defense (DOD) to request additional
contractor data, where necessary to evaluate the price
reasonableness of commercial items (other than commercially
available off-the-shelf items and other items that are
developed exclusively at private expense) that are procured for
the support of a major weapon system.
The Administration requested legislation that would amend
the definition of commercial items in section 103 of title 41,
United States Code, to exclude items that are merely ``offered
for sale'' or ``of a type'' offered for sale in the commercial
marketplace. The committee declines to make this change. The
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) (Public Law
103-355) adopted a broad definition of commercial items to
ensure that federal agencies would have ready access to
products that are available in the commercial marketplace--
including new products and modified products that are just
becoming available. Such access remains particularly critical
in fast moving commercial markets, including the markets for
information technology and other advanced products.
At the same time, the committee shares the Administration's
concern that some contractors have abused the commercial item
definition to obscure cost and price information with regard to
spare parts and components for DOD weapon systems. As DOD has
pointed out, the Government Accountability Office and the DOD
Inspector General have both criticized the Department for using
commercial item procedures to procure items that are
misclassified as commercial items and are not subject to
competitive price pressure in the commercial marketplace. In
2011, the DOD Inspector General found that non-competitive
spare parts provided by two different contractors were
significantly overpriced because of inadequate and inaccurate
data supplied by the contractors.
The provision recommended by the committee would provide
the Department with additional tools to collect needed data for
products and services that may arguably qualify as commercial
items, without undermining the widely accepted definition of
commercial items.
Maximum amount of allowable costs of compensation of contractor
employees (sec. 842)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2324(e)(1)(P) of title 10, United States Code, to
reduce the limitation on allowable compensation for defense
contractor employees from the median amount of compensation
provided to senior executives in large United States
corporations (currently 763,000) to the maximum level of
compensation for federal employees, which is set at the annual
salary of the Vice President of the United States (currently
$230,700).
Section 808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 108-85) 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
United States corporations, as calculated by the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The OFPP website indicates
that the benchmark amount, which was set at $432,851 on January
1, 2004, was increased to $763,029 on April 22, 2012--an
increase of more than 75 percent in just 8 years.
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. The committee notes that section 2324(e)(1)(P)
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to establish narrowly
targeted exceptions to the limitation on allowable
compensation, where such exceptions are needed to ensure that
the Department of Defense has continued access to scientists,
engineers, and others with unique and needed skills and
capabilities.
Department of Defense access to and use of contractor internal audit
reports (sec. 843)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) access to defense
contractor internal audit reports and supporting materials for
the purpose of assessing risk and evaluating the efficacy of
contractor internal controls and the reliability of associated
contractor business systems. Under the provision, a
contractor's refusal to permit access to internal audit reports
and supporting materials could be taken into account in any
assessment of the adequacy of contractor business systems
pursuant to section 893 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
In December 2011, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) reported on a review of DCAA access to and use of defense
contractor internal audit reports. GAO reported that generally
accepted government auditing standards require evaluation and
testing of contractor internal controls, including the work of
the contractor's internal audit activity. However, GAO found
that DCAA access to internal audits was uneven, and that one
contractor refused to provide DCAA with any access to such
audits at all. The report states:
``DCAA does not generally track its requests or
denials for internal audit reports. GAO found that the
number of DCAA requests for internal audit reports is
small relative to the number of internal audits GAO
identified as relevant to defense contract oversight.
In explaining why few reports are requested, DCAA
auditors noted obstacles such as not being able to
identify internal audits relevant to their work and
uncertainty as to how useful those reports could be. By
not routinely obtaining access to relevant company
internal audits, DCAA auditors are hindered in their
ability to effectively plan work and meet auditing
standards for evaluating internal controls.''
GAO recommended that DCAA issue guidance on how and under
what circumstances company internal audit reports can be
accessed; establish a central point of contact for each company
to coordinate issues pertaining to internal audits; and track
and assess information regarding access to such audits.
On March 30, 2012, the Director of DCAA issued the Agency's
first annual report to Congress. The report requests that
Congress clarify DCAA's access to contractor internal controls
and business systems to assess whether the systems and controls
are adequate to ensure the reliability of contractor data. The
report states:
``It is essential for DCAA to have access to
contractor reviews, inquiries, investigations, and
internal audits in order to evaluate contractor
business systems. DCAA audits contractor accounting
systems before and after contract award to assess
whether the systems are adequate for accumulating and
billing costs that comply with contract requirements.
For major contractors, DCAA audits contractor business
systems as a basis for relying on those systems during
other DCAA audits.''
Enhancement of whistleblower protections for contractor employees (sec.
844)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2409 of title 10, United States Code, to significantly
enhance whistleblower protections for contractor employees. The
provision recommended by the committee would: (1) extend
coverage to employees of subcontractors; (2) extend coverage to
disclosures that are made to management officials of the
contractor; (3) extend coverage to abuses of authority that
undermine performance of a contract; (4) extend coverage to
reprisal actions that are taken in concert with the contracting
agency; (5) revise the standard of proof to match the standard
already applicable in federal employee cases; (6) provide that
whistleblower rights under the provision may not be waived by
an arbitration agreement; (7) clarify that contractor legal
fees are not allowable if the contractor is determined to have
engaged in a reprisal; and (8) establish statutes of limitation
for complaints and appeals.
The committee understands that over a 3-year period from
2009 through 2011, 163 complaints were filed under section 2409
and only 5 of these complaints were investigated by the
Department of Defense Inspector General. In December 2011, a
representative of the Inspector General testified that many of
these complaints were outside the scope of the statute because
the alleged wrongdoing was reported by subcontractor employees
or was reported to company management. The provision
recommended by the committee would correct these and other
shortcomings in the existing law.
Extension of contractor conflict of interest limitations (sec. 845)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to determine whether guidance developed
pursuant to section 841(a) of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417) regarding personal conflicts for contractor employees
performing acquisition functions closely associated with
inherently governmental functions should be extended to
contractor personnel engaged in: (1) functions other than
acquisition functions that are closely associated with
inherently governmental functions; (2) personal services
contracts; or (3) contracts for staff augmentation services.
Repeal of sunset for certain protests of task and delivery order
contracts (sec. 846)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the
sunset date for the authority to file bid protests for task and
delivery orders in excess of $5.0 million pursuant to section
2304c(e) of title 10, United States Code.
The committee notes that: (1) the expansion of bid protests
to task and delivery orders in excess of $5.0 million provides
an increased assurance of fairness and regularity in the award
of such task and delivery orders; (2) the Government
Accountability Office has not reported an excessive increase in
the number of bid protests as a result of this authority; and
(3) the potential expiration of a previous sunset date for this
authority produced significant confusion and uncertainty in the
acquisition system over the last 2 years.
Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Wartime Contracting
Responsibility within Department of Defense for contract support for
overseas contingency operations (sec. 861)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to prescribe in regulations the chain of
authority and responsibility within the Department of Defense
(DOD) for policy, planning, and execution of contract support
for overseas contingency operations (OCO).
The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and
Afghanistan (CWC) established pursuant to section 841 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181) found that DOD lacks ``the organizational
structure needed to force important lessons learned through the
system and the authority to enable resource shift to support
the acquisition process.'' The CWC recommended the
establishment of a new directorate within the Joint Staff to
specifically focus on contingency contracting.
The committee recognizes that DOD has made significant
improvements over the last 8 years in the way that it has
organized itself to plan and manage OCO contract support. The
provision recommended by the committee would require the
Department to institutionalize these changes and ensure that
the DOD's management structure provides clear authority and
responsibility for the planning of contract support; the
establishment and validation of contract requirements; the
identification of resources and prioritization of funding
needs; the award and execution of contracts; and the oversight
and management of contractors in the field.
Annual reports on contract support for overseas contingency operations
involving combat operations (sec. 862)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report on contract
support for any overseas contingency operation that includes
combat operations and for which annual contract obligations
exceed $250.0 million. The committee notes that the reports
required by this provision are identical to the reports already
provided for contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan pursuant to
section 863 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008
(Public Law 110-181), as amended by section 835 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383).
Inclusion of contract support in certain requirements for Department of
Defense planning, joint professional military education, and
management structure (sec. 863)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
consideration of issues arising out of contract support for
contingency operations in the Department of Defense (DOD)
readiness reporting system, the contingency planning functions
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the curriculum
for joint professional military education, and the DOD
structure for the management of contracts for services.
Risk assessment and mitigation for contractor performance of critical
functions in support of overseas contingency operations (sec.
864)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) to perform a comprehensive risk
assessment and develop a risk mitigation plan for operational
and political risks associated with contractor performance of
critical functions in support of a contingency operation that
is expected to continue for more than 1 year and require the
expenditure of more than $250.0 million for contract support.
The provision defines critical functions to include private
security functions, training of foreign government personnel,
intelligence and information operations, and other functions
closely associated with inherently governmental functions. The
assessment and mitigation plan would be required to address
risks relating to the goals and objectives of the operation,
the continuity of the operation, the safety of military and
civilian personnel, DOD's managerial control over the
operation, DOD's critical organic or core capabilities, and
DOD's ability to control costs and minimize waste, fraud, and
abuse.
The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and
Afghanistan (CWC) established pursuant to section 841 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181) reported that DOD and other federal agencies have
too often made acquisition decisions that are expedient in the
short-term without adequate consideration of the long-term
risks. The final report of the CWC states:
``Ten years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen
the United States using too many contractors for too
many functions with too little forethought and control.
. . . Events in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that
systematic consideration of operational, political, and
financial risks must be a factor in judging
appropriateness. All too often, officials assume that
any task deemed not inherently governmental is
therefore automatically suitable for performance by
contractors. . . . For functions performed in a war
zone, prudent decisions on contracting include
assessing the level of risk associated with
contracting, and judging whether that level is or can
be mitigated to an acceptable level. . . . If
mitigation or control measures leave the residual risks
of using contractors at a level that outweighs the
expected benefits, then the government needs timely and
deployable options to support the contingency
mission.''
The provision recommended by the committee would not
preclude contractors from performing any specific functions.
Rather, it would require DOD to systematically consider the
potential risks associated with contractor performance of
particular functions in an area of combat operations and take
appropriate actions to mitigate or avoid such risks.
Extension and modification of reports on contracting in Iraq and
Afghanistan (sec. 865)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
2 years the requirement for an annual report on contracting in
Iraq and Afghanistan pursuant to section 863 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), as amended by section 835 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383). The provision would also repeal the requirement for the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the annual
reports.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to report to the
congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act on the steps that the
Department of Defense has taken and plans to take to address
data and system deficiencies identified in previous GAO reports
required by section 863 and to ensure the accuracy and
completeness of contracting data available to the Department in
current and future contingency operations.
Extension of temporary authority to acquire products and services in
countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec.
866)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2014, the authority for the Department of
Defense (DOD) to acquire products and services on a non-
competitive basis in countries along a major route of supply to
Afghanistan. This authority was requested by DOD to help build
partnerships and support in countries along critical supply
routes, and to help bolster stability in the region.
Compliance with Berry amendment required for uniform components
supplied to Afghanistan military or Afghanistan National Police
(sec. 867)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense to comply with the requirements of the
Berry amendment, section 2533a of title 10, United States Code,
in the case of any textile components supplied by the
Department to the Afghan National Army or the Afghanistan
National Police for purposes of production of uniforms.
Sense of the Senate on the contributions of Latvia and other North
Atlantic Treaty Organization member nations to the success of
the Northern Distribution Network (sec. 868)
The committee recommends a provision that would commend
Latvia and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
member nations along the Northern Distribution Network (NDN)
for their contributions to ensuring that U.S. and coalition
forces in Afghanistan have reliable lines of supply. The
provision would also encourage the Department of Defense to
make significant efforts to procure goods locally from Latvia
and other NATO member nations along the NDN when quality
products at competitive prices are available.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Requirements and limitations for suspension and debarment officials of
the Department of Defense (sec. 881)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Suspension and Debarment Officials of the Department of the
Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air
Force, and the Defense Logistics Agency to be independent of
acquisition officials, to be engaged only in suspension and
debarment activities and other fraud-remedies activities, to
document final decisions, and to develop written policies for
the consideration of referrals.
The provision would also require automatic referral for
consideration of suspension or debarment of any person who has
been charged with a federal criminal offense in connection with
a Department of Defense (DOD) contract; been alleged in a
criminal or civil proceeding brought by the United States to
have engaged in fraudulent activities in connection with a DOD
contract; or is the subject of a final determination that the
person has failed to pay or refund money due or owed to the
Federal Government in connection with a DOD contract.
The committee understands that suspension and debarment
generally apply to all divisions and other organizational
elements of a contractor, unless the suspension or debarment
decision is limited by its terms to specific divisions,
organizational elements, or commodities. The committee further
understands that in any case where the misconduct on which a
suspension or debarment is based is systemic in nature, a
narrow limitation would be inappropriate.
Uniform contract writing system requirements for the Department of
Defense (sec. 882)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) to establish uniform data
standards, internal control requirements, independent
verification and validation requirements, and business process
rules for the processing of procurement requests, contracts,
receipts, and invoices, and to ensure that all DOD contracts
are entered through electronic contract writing systems that
meet those requirements.
Comptroller General of the United States review of use by the
Department of Defense of urgent and compelling exception to
competition (sec. 883)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the use by the
Department of Defense (DOD) of the unusual and compelling
urgency exception to full and open competition provided in
section 2304(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code. The GAO
report would be required to determine patterns in the use of
the exception, whether justifications for the use of the
exception meet statutory requirements, the extent to which
decisions to solicit bids or proposals from only one source
have been appropriately documented and justified, and whether
DOD The has complied with limitations on the duration of
contracts entered pursuant to the exception.
Authority to provide fee-for-service inspection and testing by Defense
Contract Management Agency for certain critical equipment in
the absence of a procurement contract (sec. 884)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Defense Contract Management Agency to accept reimbursement
from a manufacturer or assembler for testing and inspection of
an item when the nature of the item requires such inspection or
testing as a precondition to government acceptance of the item
under a future government contract. The Department of Defense
requested this authority to expedite the testing and inspection
of items that are determined to be critical to defense
acquisition programs.
Disestablishment of Defense Materiel Readiness Board (sec. 885)
The committee recommends a provision that would
disestablish the Defense Materiel Readiness Board created by
section 871 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as requested by the
Department of Defense.
Modification of period of wait following notice to Congress of intent
to contract for leases of certain vessels and vehicles (sec.
886)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2401(h) of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate
the requirement of notification of Congress and then having to
wait for 30 days of a continuous session of Congress to pass
before a vessel lease contract may be made. The proposed change
would ensure that Congress continues to receive a 30-day notice
of proposed charters, but would eliminate the uncertainty that
results from a congressional schedule that seldom provides a
period of 30 days of continuous session.
Extension of other transaction authority (sec. 887)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 845 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160) to extend for 5 years the
authority for the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot
program for the acquisition of certain prototypes pursuant to
``other transactions.''
Items of Special Interest
Competition in the development and procurement of training systems for
major ground and airborne vehicle programs
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 maintenance and sustainment of a major weapon
system 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 for major
ground and airborne vehicle programs. The committee is aware
that original equipment manufacturers may have rights in
technical data that are essential to the development of
effective training systems. However, the same impediment is
faced--and has been overcome--in the area of maintenance and
sustainment of major weapon systems. 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
ground and airborne vehicle programs.
Engagement with independent experts and interested parties in
implementation of counterfeit parts legislation
Section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) requires the Department of
Defense (DOD) to adopt comprehensive guidance and processes for
the detection and avoidance of counterfeit parts. In
particular, the provision requires DOD to: (1) revise
acquisition rules to ensure that the cost of replacement and
rework required by the use of suspect counterfeit parts is paid
for by the contractor responsible; (2) ensure that DOD and its
suppliers purchase electronic parts from manufacturers and
their authorized dealers or from qualified, trusted suppliers;
(3) require DOD officials and contractors who become aware of
counterfeit parts in the supply chain to provide appropriate
written notification of the problem; and (4) ensure that DOD
and its largest contractors establish effective systems and
procedures to detect and avoid counterfeit parts.
The committee expects the DOD to implement these
requirements quickly and aggressively. At the same time,
however, the committee is aware of a number of complex issues
that must be addressed. For example, which requirements of
section 818 apply only to ``covered contractors''--contractors
who are subject to the cost accounting standards--and which
requirements apply more broadly? To what extent should
suppliers of commercial, off-the-shelf end items be excluded
from coverage pursuant to the authority of section 1907 of
title 41, United States Code? Should the provision disallowing
costs of rework or corrective action that may be required to
remedy the use or inclusion of counterfeit parts apply to parts
that are supplied to contractors as government-furnished
equipment?
The committee encourages DOD to solicit the views of both
independent experts and interested parties--including
representatives of original equipment manufacturers, DOD prime
contractors, and lower-tier contractors in affected
industries--as it works to address these and other
implementation issues.
Implementation of section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2010
Section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) requires a written
justification and approval (J&A) for any sole-source contract
awarded by a federal agency in excess of $20.0 million. The
Senate report accompanying S. 1235 (S. Rept. 112-26) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
directed the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress with
specific data on the implementation of section 811 by the
Department of Defense (DOD). The Senate subsequently directed
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the DOD
reports and provide its assessment of the effectiveness of the
implementation of section 811.
Because of a long delay in the rulemaking process, section
811 was not fully implemented until more than a year after its
enactment. During the period prior to full implementation,
federal agencies including DOD continued to award contracts
without the required J&As. The most recent reports from DOD and
GAO do not segregate data on contract awards into awards that
were made before, and awards that were made after, full
implementation. As a result, the data provided the committee on
the implementation of section 811 remains inconclusive and
incomplete.
For this reason, the committee extends the reporting
requirements for both the Secretary of Defense and the
Comptroller General for 1 more year, through March 1, 2014. The
Secretary's 2013 and 2014 reports should provide the
Secretary's assessment of the steps taken by the military
departments to implement section 811 and the efficacy of that
implementation.
Inventories and reviews of contracts for services
Section 2330a of title 10, United States Code, as first
enacted in section 801 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107), required the
Department of Defense (DOD) to establish a data collection
system to provide management information with regard to DOD
purchases of contract services. In 2007, the Senate Committee
on Armed Services expressed frustration that this requirement
had yet to be fully implemented. The Senate report accompanying
S. 1574 (S. Rept. 110-77) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (FY 2008 NDAA) stated: ``Five years
later, the Department's expenditures for contract services have
nearly doubled, but DOD still has not conducted a comprehensive
analysis of its spending on these services.'' Section 807 of
the FY 2008 NDAA amended and strengthened section 2330a,
requiring the Department to produce an annual inventory of
contract services.
Since the enactment of section 807, DOD has continued to
drag its feet. Of the three military departments, only the Army
has developed an effective inventory system. Section 936 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81) required DOD to adopt an approach similar to that
already developed by the Army. The Statement of Managers on the
conference report explained:
``[T]he inventory, when fully developed in accordance
with statutory requirements, will provide the
Department with useful workforce information for
identifying inherently governmental functions
inappropriately performed under contract, informing
strategic human capital planning, and facilitating an
appropriate mix of military, civilian, and contractor
personnel. At the same time, a compliant inventory will
be an important acquisition tool, enabling the
Department to better leverage its buying power,
rationalize its supplier base, foster competitive
procurements, and ensure the best value for the
taxpayers' dollar. The conferees are disappointed that
the Department has yet to take the steps needed to
achieve full compliance with the statutory
requirements.''
The Statement of Managers noted that the Department had
recently developed a plan to comply with the statutory
requirements. Unfortunately, this plan has been sidetracked for
a number of months by DOD's decision to submit the implementing
procedures for review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and by the refusal of OMB to address the matter as an
expedited, ``emergency'' requirement. As a result, more than 10
years after section 2330a was first enacted, DOD still lacks an
effective database to manage the $200.0 billion a year that it
spends on contract services.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to report to the
congressional defense committees by no later than July 15,
2012, on the status of the Department's efforts to implement
section 2330a and the timeline for full implementation of the
requirements of this provision.
Joint Urgent Operational Needs and Joint Emergent Operational Needs
Section 804(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383)
required the Secretary of Defense to establish an expedited
review process to determine whether capabilities proposed as
urgent operational needs are appropriate for fielding through
rapid acquisition processes. The provision requires that,
subject to exceptions determined to be appropriate by the
Secretary, rapid fielding of capabilities in response to urgent
operational needs is appropriate only for capabilities that:
(A) can be fielded within 2 years; (B) do not require
substantial development effort; (C) are based on technologies
that are proven and available; and (D) can appropriately be
acquired under fixed price contracts. The Senate report
accompanying S. 3454 (S. Rept. 111-201) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 on this provision
explains:
``In some cases, it appears that the military
services have stretched the boundaries of rapid
acquisition authorities to undertake large and complex
acquisition programs that would be more suitable to the
traditional acquisition process. . . . In view of the
high development risk associated with some of these
programs and the fact that a number of them appear to
be redundant or duplicative of existing programs, the
committee concludes that the Department needs stronger
guidance on the proper application of rapid acquisition
processes.''
The Department of Defense has proposed legislation to
repeal the requirement that the rapid fielding process be
limited to capabilities that can appropriately be acquired
under fixed price contracts. The proposed change is unnecessary
because section 804(b) already authorizes the Secretary of
Defense to adopt such exceptions to the requirement as he
determines to be necessary. The change would be unwise because
capabilities that cannot appropriately be acquired under fixed
price contracts are likely to include significant development
risk that renders them unsuitable for rapid fielding. The
committee concludes that section 804(b) already provides the
Department with the flexibility to use other than fixed price
contracts, and that this flexibility should be used only in
unusual and compelling circumstances.
The committee also notes that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff Instruction 3170.01H, issued January 10, 2012, and the
Manual for the Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration
and Development System, issued January 19, 2012, which
implement the requirements of section 804(b) with regard to
Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUON), also establish a new
category of requirement, known as Joint Emergent Operational
Needs (JEON). Under the Instruction and the Manual, both JUONs
and JEONs may be acquired through rapid fielding processes.
Unlike JUONs, however, JEONs are not limited to capabilities
that can be fielded within 2 years, do not require extensive
development, are based on proven technologies, and can be
appropriately acquired through fixed price contracts.
The committee acknowledges that it is appropriate for the
Department of Defense to establish a ``middle tier'' of
acquisition for capabilities that are not suitable for rapid
fielding, but need not be subject to the full range of
requirements applicable to major defense acquisition programs.
However, this ``middle tier'' must be more than a process for
avoiding the limitations established in section 804(b) and the
requirements of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of
2009 (WSARA) (Public Law 111-23).
The fundamental premise of WSARA is that acquisition
programs must be put on sound footing from the outset through
sound up-front analysis and cost-performance trade-offs; the
establishment of reasonable cost, schedule, and performance
expectations; an insistence on strong systems engineering; and
the use of appropriately mature technologies. In the view of
the committee the initiation of a significant acquisition
program without such up-front work is a formula for cost
overruns, schedule delays, and performance deficiencies.
As presently structured, the JEON process requires a 1-day
initial review, followed by a 30-day validation period. After
that, the Instruction and the Manual appear to make no
distinction between JUONs and JEONs: both go through the same
rapid acquisition process, both are authorized to use the same
expedited alternatives to Analyses of Alternatives, both are
permitted to proceed directly to procurement ``without the need
to develop and validate any of the other associated JCIDS
[Joint Capabilities Integration Development System]
documents''; and both are assessed for long-term operational
utility only after they have been fielded.
The committee notes that while the JUON rapid acquisition
process has been established to provide an urgent capability
for ongoing contingency operations within 2 years that is
unconstrained by the relatively slow pace of the defense budget
process, the Department's guidance for the JEON process allows
for the emerging capability to be fielded within up to 5 years
in support of an anticipated contingency operation. The
committee questions how the Department will be able to firmly
identify an anticipated contingency, and how the Department
will assess the urgency of the emerging capability as a
justification for using the JEON process as opposed to the
traditional budget and acquisition process.
The committee concludes that additional protections are
needed to ensure that the JEON process is not abused.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in
coordination with the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, to develop additional guidance for JEONs, including:
criteria for assessing the urgency of
requirements (including a determination of the
likelihood of ``an anticipated or pending contingency
operation'');
standards for ensuring that technologies are
sufficiently mature to be suitable for rapid
acquisition;
procedures for ensuring the appropriate
consideration of alternative solutions; and
processes for ensuring appropriate cost-
performance trade-offs, sound cost estimates, and
robust testing and systems engineering.
In the absence of well-developed protections along these
lines, the committee is likely to be skeptical of requests to
fund JEONs on an expedited basis.
Recommendations by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the
involvement by the service chiefs in the acquisition of major
weapon systems
In April 2012, the Defense Business Board (DBB) recommended
that the chiefs of the military services should be more engaged
and accountable in the acquisition process. The DBB stated that
just as input by the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics ``is critical in the
requirements process in order to ensure that affordability and
technological capability are considered,'' service chief
involvement ``is critical in the acquisition process in order
to ensure that military needs are met.'' For this reason, the
DBB indicated that ``DOD needs to create a partnership across
budget, requirements, and acquisition leaders to create a
linked and streamlined'' acquisition process.
The committee agrees that the engagement of the service
chiefs in the overall process by which DOD acquires major
weapon systems is important to ensuring that the process is
responsive to the needs of the military. For example, the cost,
schedule, and performance trade-offs required by the Weapon
Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (WSARA) (Public Law 111-
23) would be impossible without continuous engagement between
senior military leaders and the acquisition community.
Similarly, the Configuration Steering Boards established in
accordance with the requirements of section 814 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417) to control costs and requirements on major
defense acquisition programs could not be effective without the
engagement of senior military leaders.
For these reasons, section 2547 of title 10, United States
Code, enacted by section 861 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383), established a permanent role for the chiefs of the armed
forces in the acquisition process; section 908 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for 2008 (Public Law 110-181)
required each of the military departments to appoint a three-
star military deputy to the department's service acquisition
executive; and section 105 of the WSARA required that the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council seek and consider input from the
commanders of the combatant commands in identifying joint
military requirements.
Because of the continuing importance of this issue, the
committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, no later than 180 days after
enactment of this Act, any recommendations he may have to
ensure the full engagement of the service chiefs in the
acquisition of major weapon systems, consistent with the
objectives stated in this provision.
Reverse auctions
The committee is aware that the military departments have
increasingly used online reverse auctions for the procurement
of commodities and simple services. When used appropriately,
this approach has been effective in lowering the cost of such
commodities and services by stimulating aggressive competition
between vendors. It has also proved beneficial to small
businesses, which receive a large majority of the purchases.
The committee encourages the military departments to expand
their use of reverse auctions for appropriate types of
commodities and simple services, whenever doing so would be
expected to result in savings.
Strategic sourcing and spend analyses
For more than a decade, the committee has been urging the
Department of Defense (DOD) to do a better job of managing its
contracts for services. The Senate report accompanying S. 1438
(S. Rept. 107-62) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002 stated:
``[T]he Department has never conducted a
comprehensive spending analysis of its services
contracts and has made little effort to leverage its
buying power, improve the performance of its services
contractors, rationalize its supplier base, or
otherwise ensure that its dollars are well spent. . . .
The GAO has informed the committee that a number of
companies in the private sector have achieved
significant savings without any reduction in services
by instituting best practices such as centralizing key
functions, promoting strategic orientation, improving
personnel skills and capabilities, conducting spending
analyses, rationalizing supplier bases, and expanding
the use of cross-functional, commodity-based teams.''
In May 2003, DOD established a Department-wide Strategic
Sourcing Program in an effort to leverage the Department's
purchasing power and rationalize its spending for both services
and commodities. In 2005, the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy followed with a government-wide strategic sourcing
initiative. Over the last 5 years, the military departments
have continued to perform spending analyses and develop
strategic sourcing initiatives for specific service and
commodity portfolios with positive results.
Nonetheless, more remains to be done. In January 2011, a
task force of the Defense Science Board found that DOD could
save billions of dollars if it incorporates ``more robust
strategic sourcing best practices'' into its operations and
business models. Similarly, in March 2011, the Government
Accountability Office reported that the Federal Government
could save billions of dollars by applying strategic sourcing
best practices on a broader basis. The committee believes that
there are additional commodity areas in which DOD could achieve
significant savings by rationalizing its supplier base and
better leveraging its buying power. The committee urges the
Department to take advantage of these opportunities.
Treatment of procurements on behalf of the Department of Defense in
accordance with the interagency agreement between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy
The Department of Energy (DOE) has expressed the view that
section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) requires DOE to comply
with ``defense procurement requirements'' and that this
requirement ``has the potential to hinder critical national
security activities supported by the DOE.'' For this reason,
DOE has requested an exemption from section 801.
DOE's interpretation of section 801 is incorrect. Section
801, as amended by section 817 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81),
requires DOE and other federal agencies that make purchases on
behalf of the Department of Defense (DOD) to comply with: (1)
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); and (2) laws and
regulations that apply to DOD procurements through other
federal agencies. The committee notes that in September 2010,
DOD and DOE entered a Memorandum of Agreement (2010 MOA)
establishing the regulatory framework for DOD work undertaken
under the DOE ``Work for Others'' (WFO) program. These
requirements were further elaborated in a September 2011
Memorandum issued by the Director of Defense Procurement Policy
(2011 Memorandum).
For this reason, DOD procurements through the WFO program
that are conducted in accordance with the FAR, the 2010 MOA,
and the 2011 Memorandum are also in compliance with the
requirements of section 801, as amended. The committee
concludes that DOD and DOE can and should comply with the
requirements of section 801, and that no waiver or exemption
should be necessary for this purpose. The committee expects the
Inspectors General of DOD and DOE to continue to audit DOD
procurements through DOE for compliance with the requirements
of the FAR, the 2010 MOA, and the 2011 Memorandum, as required
by section 801.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management
Definition and report on terms ``preparation of the environment'' and
``operational preparation of the environment'' for joint
doctrine purposes (sec. 901)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense to formally define the terms
``preparation of the environment (PE)'' and ``operational
preparation of the environment (OPE)'' for the purposes of
Joint Doctrine and provide the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and House of Representatives a report, including:
the definitions of PE and OPE, examples of PE and OPE
activities highlighting application of the concepts and drawing
distinctions between the two types of activities, and an
assessment of the respective roles of special operations and
general purpose forces in conducting PE and OPE activities.
The committee is concerned that, despite their frequent
use, the terms PE and OPE are not accurately or clearly
understood, and are often used interchangeably to describe
various activities by special operations and general purpose
forces.
The term PE is currently defined in Joint Doctrine (Joint
Publication 1-02) as ``an umbrella term for operations and
activities conducted by selectively trained special operations
forces to develop an environment for potential future special
operations.'' The committee notes that this definition is
inadequate and misleading because, in practice, PE activities
are not restricted to special operations forces or operations
and are carried out by and in support of general purpose
forces.
The committee also notes that the term OPE is not currently
defined in Joint Doctrine, despite the term appearing in
various department publications, directives, and orders. The
committee believes the inadequate definition of these terms has
resulted in confusion within the military, friction in the
interagency coordination process, and reduced congressional
oversight.
Expansion of duties and responsibilities of the Nuclear Weapons Council
(sec. 902)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
statute authorizing the Nuclear Weapons Council (10 U.S.C. 179)
to require that concurrent with the President's budget
submission, that the Council certify in writing that the budget
for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) meets
both the nuclear stockpile and the stockpile stewardship
requirements. Dissenting opinions shall be provided with the
written certification.
The provision also requires the Council to notify the
congressional defense committees on the impacts of any
authorization or appropriation bill adopted by either the
Senate or the House of Representatives that in the view of the
Council fails to adequately fund the nuclear stockpile and
nuclear stockpile stewardship requirements.
Subtitle B--Space Activities
Operationally Responsive Space Program Office (sec. 911)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2273a of title 10, United States Code, authorizing the
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. This provision
would require the ORS Program Office to report to the Air
Force's Director of Space and Missile Systems Center and that
the Office be geographically separate from the Headquarters of
the Center, similar to what General Schriever required for the
Space Test Program in 1965. The provision gives acquisition
authority to the Program Element Office for Space. The
provision would require an Executive Committee made up of the
Commander of the Air Force Space Command, the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the
Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, and the Executive Agent
for Space, which would chair the board. The committee directs,
no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, a copy of
the terms of reference of the Executive Committee. The
committee grants authority to transfer up to $60.0 million from
the Weather Follow On Satellite Program, to the extent provided
in appropriations acts to other higher priority programs,
including having the ORS Office produce a low cost follow on
satellite. If funding is transferred for a low cost weather
satellite, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to report to Congress no later than December 31, 2012, on the
total cost and launch date for the satellite. The committee
expects a similar ORS-1 type payload, low cost, technologically
simple, and launched within 3 years.
For fiscal year 2013, the Department of Defense proposed to
eliminate the ORS Program Office. The Department proposes to
transition the Program's success and knowledge into the other
satellite acquisition programs. The committee finds the
Department's rationale, to cancel a program because it is
successful--curious. The committee rejects the proposed
termination. The purpose of the Office is to lower the cost and
time to launch tactically responsive satellites. Such
satellites do not need perfection, they need to be responsive,
the satellite ORS-1 met the challenge. It is an imaging
satellite designed, built, and launched on the order of $225.0
million in less than 32 months. The satellite is tasked
directly by U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which the committee
understands is pleased with the satellite's performance.
U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) on February 28, 2012,
responded to a question from the Senate Committee on Armed
Services regarding the utility of ORS-1 and said: ``Based on
CENTCOM's success with that system, we've had recent
discussions with the Operational Responsive Space Program on
developing an ORS-1 system for PACOM as well. These systems
will be particularly useful in enhancing PACOM's ability to
collect in denied areas that we cannot reach with airborne
systems.'' In response to another question about the ORS
ability to field this class of satellites to increase the
resiliency and responsiveness of PACOM's space capabilities,
PACOM's response was: ``The future potential for rapid
reconstitution of overhead systems in the face of adversary
counter-space capabilities is very important to increasing the
resiliency and responsiveness of PACOM's space capabilities.
PACOM is a strong proponent of ORS-class satellites.''
When the venture capital community is investigating
launching modified cell phones into space for a reconfigurable,
low cost communications constellation, there is much to be
learned from the ORS Program and much more that it can impart
into the Department of Defense to lower the cost, where
practicable, of access to space.
Commercial space launch cooperation (sec. 912)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide for
a private entity using DOD launch ranges and facilities to
contribute to their maintenance.
Reports on integration of acquisition and capability delivery schedules
for components for major satellite acquisition programs and
funding for such programs (sec. 913)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to track concurrently the development of both the
satellite and ground systems and to report to Congress
corrective measures that will be taken when the satellite and
ground systems are more than 1 year apart in synchronization.
The committee has found that the Department of Defense is
bringing a number of large satellite systems into operation
without having the ground systems to use it. Examples of
systems in this category are the Advanced Extremely High
Frequency Satellite, the Space Based Infrared System, the
Mobile User Objective System, and the GPS III. Department of
Defense representation in dispute resolution regarding
surrender of Department of Defense bands of electromagnetic
frequencies (sec. 914)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1062(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65, 47 U.S.C. 921 note) to
require that the Department of Defense be adequately
represented to convey its views.
Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related and Cyber Matters
Authority to provide geospatial intelligence support to security
alliances and international and regional organizations (sec.
921)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency to
provide imagery intelligence and geospatial information support
to security alliances and international organizations of which
the United States is a member, and to regional organizations
with defense or security components. This provision was
requested by the administration.
Army Distributed Common Ground System (sec. 922)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of the Army to assign oversight of the DCGS-Army
cloud acquisition effort to the Army's Chief Information
Officer (CIO)/G-6. The provision would require the CIO to
conduct an audit of the program and provide an assessment and
recommendations to the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff
of the Army by December 1, 2012.
In mid-2010, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence for
U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A), signed a Joint Urgent
Operational Needs Statement (JUONS) requesting the rapid
fielding to all echelons in Afghanistan of a commercially
available analyst toolkit, which he had evaluated, that he
believed would dramatically improve intelligence analysis in
theater.
The Army at the time was accelerating the development, with
the National Security Agency, of a cloud-computing system for
the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) that the Army G-2
believed would transform intelligence analysis capabilities. Up
to this point, the Army had been seriously considering
integrating the commercial toolset requested in the USFOR-A
JUONS with the DCGS cloud system. The thought was that, while
the Army cloud was rapidly maturing the ability to ingest,
correlate, store, and distribute vast amounts of disparate
data, the effort to produce new types of analyst tools for data
query, manipulation, and display was lagging. Commercial
analyst tools, in contrast, provided rich analyst support, but
were perceived to lack the large-scale data handling ability of
cloud architectures.
Ultimately, however, the Army decided not to support the
USFOR-A JUONS by acquiring the requested commercial toolset,
despite its ability to complement the Army cloud program.
Instead, the Army asserted that its own analyst tool
development program would be ready as fast as the proposed
commercial product deployment, and would provide equal
capabilities. This decision generated much controversy within
the Department of Defense, and concern in Congress, but the
Army was given the opportunity to prove that it could deliver
the promised capabilities. In the 2 years that have ensued, the
Army periodically re-examined the option of integrating
multiple commercial front-end analyst tools (such as Analyst
Notebook, Palantir, Centrifuge, Semantica, etc.) into its cloud
architecture, but has always elected to stick with its internal
development.
Meanwhile, the Marine Corps and even some Army units in
Afghanistan proceeded to deploy commercial products. Overall,
the feedback from these units and an independent assessment by
the Deputy Secretary of Defense-chartered National Assessment
Group has been very positive on these commercial products.
Unfortunately, the Army cloud's analyst support appears to
continue to lag behind promised performance. In testimony to
Congress in late 2011, the Army indicated that only 115
analysts in Afghanistan are using the Army's DCGS cloud analyst
tools, despite years of development and considerable expense.
The committee lacks confidence that the three groups trying
to jointly manage the Army's DCGS modernization--the G-2's
office, the Intelligence and Security Command, and the
Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate of the
Communications-Electronics Research and Development Center--are
going to deliver a fully capable, end-to-end system to support
the warfighter on an acceptable schedule and cost.
Rationalization of cyber networks and cyber personnel of the Department
of Defense (sec. 923)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
network consolidation and re-design to free up personnel to
achieve an appropriate balance between U.S. Cyber Command's
mission capabilities. In the event that the rate at which
personnel freed up from network consolidation is insufficient,
or if the personnel available are not able to meet the
requirements for supporting Cyber Command's offensive missions,
the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to take
appropriate action to provide qualified personnel in the
required timeframe.
General Alexander, the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command, in
speeches, testimony to the committee, and within the Department
of Defense (DOD) has declared that DOD networks are not
defensible due to the proliferation of sub-networks, each with
its own security barriers, which prevents visibility and
control by commanders. Although the committee cannot
substantiate the claim that there are ``15,000'' such sub-
networks, there is no dispute that there are far too many such
enclaves with features that today hinder rather than promote
information security.
General Alexander's testimony also confirmed that the
personnel assigned to Cyber Command and its components are
overwhelmingly allocated to network management and defense. A
small percentage of the workforce attends to the Command's
offensive missions and responsibilities. General Alexander
confirmed that this ratio reflects an imbalance in capabilities
and must be rectified.
General Alexander and others in DOD agree that both issues
could be at least partially rectified by dramatically reducing
the number of separate network enclaves in the Department,
which should yield significant manpower savings, and re-train
and re-assign that manpower to supporting offensive missions.
In the past, DOD sought to secure information and regulate
access to information by controlling access to the network
itself. DOD rules encouraged or even required organizations to
erect access and security barriers as a condition for
connecting to the backbone network. The result is a
proliferation of ``virtual private networks'' with firewalls
and intrusion detection systems, and administrators and
analysts to manage and protect them. Desktops and servers
behind those barriers are hidden from view and from management.
In addition to hampering the work of Cyber Command, this
network balkanization makes it hard to share information, to
collaborate, and to access common enterprise services.
Network rationalization and the use of identity- and
attribute-based access controls should enable improved
performance, better security, and more efficient use of
personnel.
Next-generation host-based cyber security system for the Department of
Defense (sec. 924)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) Chief Information Officer and the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to develop a strategy to acquire next-generation
host-based cybersecurity tools and capabilities, and provide
that strategy to Congress in conjunction with the budget
request for fiscal year 2015.
The DOD is now completing deployment of the Host Based
Security System (HBSS) that provides cybersecurity capabilities
for millions of endpoint or host computing devices across the
Department. This deployment took a long time, cost
significantly more than expected, and proved to be a
complicated and very difficult undertaking.
This experience has instilled a ``never again'' attitude
among DOD's cybersecurity leadership regarding enterprise-scale
endpoint security solutions. Instead, DOD appears to be hoping
that network-level security enhancements will not only overcome
the weaknesses in the current HBSS, but enable the Department
to meet future cybersecurity threats. The Commander of U.S.
Cyber Command has also publicly characterized endpoint security
for today's ``thick-client'' desktop, laptop, and mobile device
computers as an exercise in futility on the grounds that it is
impossible to coherently manage, monitor, and update millions
of such devices distributed across the globe. In addition, the
Commander of U.S. Cyber Command points out that the Command
currently does not even have visibility or the ability to
directly control those endpoints because (as noted elsewhere in
this report) they are typically ``hidden'' behind enclave
firewalls and other security devices. The Commander argues
publicly that ``endpoint security'' will be viable only in a
cloud environment where endpoint computing is virtualized and
provisioning and control are centralized and fully automated.
The HBSS system itself is fundamentally based on anti-virus
technology, which works only when the signature of an attack is
already known. This requires that HBSS-protected computers
store a large and ever-growing file of malware signatures. The
communications load necessary to keep HBSS up-to-date in the
field in some circumstances forces commanders with low
communications capacity to choose between operating HBSS and
performing their tactical missions, which results in HBSS being
turned off.
The committee is concerned that these views are short-
sighted from multiple perspectives. Constant, rapid malware
morphing is a reality, and the growing use of encryption (for
example, the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure), suggest that
endpoint security solutions will remain essential. Further,
industry is now rapidly developing and marketing endpoint
security solutions that do not rely on signatures and
potentially could vastly reduce the ``overhead'' associated
with HBSS. Some of these technologies enable ``discovery'' of
previously unseen cyber threats at the endpoint, which could
transform host computers into a much improved sensor grid for
the enterprise.
Moreover, as noted elsewhere in this report, DOD must soon
rationalize its networks to reduce the number of segmented
enclaves, which should extend visibility and easier
provisioning and control to endpoints. Finally, although the
Commander of U.S. Cyber Command is promoting a fast transition
to a cloud-hosting environment, it may take a long time to
replace millions and millions of desktops, laptops, mobile
devices, and other distributed computers with thin-client
devices served exclusively from the cloud.
This provision would require the strategy to address the
limitations of the current HBSS system, and to include
exploitation of emerging technologies for behavior-based threat
detection, insider threat detection, data loss prevention,
dynamic encryption of data-at-rest, remediation following
infections, and continuous monitoring and configuration
management. The provision encourages building on the
integration framework featured in HBSS to enable ``plug-and-
play'' of tools into an open architecture. This capability
would permit constant insertion of new, competitively developed
tools, as well as tailored or non-standard deployments.
Improvements of security, quality, and competition in computer software
procured by the Department of Defense (sec. 925)
The committee recommends a provision that would mandate
multiple actions to improve the security and quality of
computer software code, and enhance the ability of the
Department of Defense to compete software maintenance and
upgrades.
The Department of Defense (DOD) suffers from constant cyber
attacks. A significant route for intruders is through
vulnerabilities in the software that DOD paid contractors to
develop, which often includes integration of custom software
code with commercial software packages.
Cybersecurity in important respects begins with secure
software. DOD's software is riddled with common and easily
preventable vulnerabilities. DOD spends enormous resources then
trying to protect that code from being exploited, discovering
when it is compromised, and dealing with the consequences of
infections. If the code was written properly in the first
place, defending DOD information systems would be much easier.
DOD needs to insist that the code it pays for be secure,
and to implement concrete methods and means to achieve that
objective. One method for improving code security is to use
automated test tools to identify vulnerabilities and to
remediate them in development. Most current software code
vulnerability testing tools work only on source code. To ensure
maximum access to source code for quality and security
analysis, DOD needs to exercise its legal rights to technical
data.
The government has other strong interests in exercising
these data rights, including software re-use and competition
for system maintenance, upgrade, and capability insertion. DOD
has demonstrated dramatic savings by forcing open complex
software-based systems to competition. But achieving success is
difficult, and software re-use historically has not been very
successful. The committee believes that modern approaches to
software repositories, open architecture design, advanced tools
for analyzing and understanding software code, improved
software development standards and processes, and collaborative
software development environments have the potential to
significantly improve cybersecurity and increase competition.
This provision would require the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), in
coordination with the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to
sponsor a major update and improvement to capability maturity
models for development and acquisition. The goal of this effort
would be to sharpen the best practices for software development
and to provide significantly better means to measure whether
organizations are actually implementing the processes and
practices at the level expected for the maturity level at which
they have been assessed.
The provision also would require USD(AT&L) and the CIO to
solidify requirements for secure software development practices
and standards. Chief among these is the need to require, rather
than just ``highly recommend,'' the use of static software
analysis tools in the development process, and in evaluating
the code in development and operational tests. These tools are
widely available commercially, but are rarely used even though
they have proven capabilities to detect a large percentage of
the most commonly exploited vulnerabilities. It is true that
these tools generate a large number of false positives in order
to achieve the lowest possible rate of false negatives. But
high false positive rates are not a significant problem in the
development stage, when the developer can build and test
incrementally. U.S. Transportation Command and the Military
Health Service already have successful experience with this
approach.
The Defense Information Systems Agency's (DISA's) Security
Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) requires the use of
coding standards, but not specifically including secure coding
standards, and the references listed in the STIG are best
characterized as style guides rather than coding standards.
This provision would require that the STIG be modified
accordingly, and that appropriate guidance be developed for
requiring the use of secure software coding plans in statements
of work.
This provision would require the USD(AT&L) and the CIO to
develop appropriate guidance for program managers to require
evidence that software developers are actually conforming to
secure coding standards, best-practice development models, and
vulnerability testing requirements, and, in so doing, make
appropriate use of software code assessment centers that
already exist or could be created in government organizations,
federally funded research and development centers (FFRDC), and
contractor facilities.
This provision would require investigation of additional
means to incentivize the development of secure, high-quality
software through the imposition of liabilities, warranties, and
liability protections. The committee is aware of commercial
software companies that are now offering defect-free warranties
for software code bases up to 600,000 lines of code. The
professional judgment of the Software Engineering Institute, a
FFRDC funded by DOD, is that writing high-quality, secure code
should not cost any more than the vulnerable code the
government is buying today. It simply requires competence and
diligence.
Finally, the provision would require DOD to designate
software repositories and collaborative software development
environments, such as those existing today in DISA's Forge.mil
and at U.S. Transportation Command. The objective is to expand
the use of such facilities to store code that the government
owns or to which it has use rights; to enable program offices
to use common development infrastructure instead of buying new
equipment for every new program; to foster collaboration and
the use of proven software development practices; and to enable
program managers and prospective bidders to discover code for
re-use, to assess its quality and security, or to research code
characteristics and functionality to compete on upgrades,
capability insertions, and maintenance.
The committee considers it critically important for DOD to
provide these repositories' users with access to advanced
software reverse engineering and analysis tools and to static
and dynamic vulnerability testing capabilities that work both
on source code and code binaries. As noted previously, there
are many capable commercial tools available for source code
analysis. Industry is working on binary code analysis tools,
but these are not yet mature or comprehensive in functionality.
NSA has devoted much effort to software reverse engineering
capabilities to support its signals intelligence mission that
run the gamut from source code to machine code, and from
functionality analysis to vulnerability detection. Depending on
maturity, scalability, and ease of use, these National Security
Agency (NSA) tools could be extremely useful to the DOD
acquisition community to improve not only software security,
but also software re-use and competition by enabling program
managers and prospective bidders to better understand code.
The committee directs the USD(AT&L), the CIO, and the
Director of NSA to carefully assess the tools that NSA has and
is developing and determine what could be utilized in the DOD
acquisition system. The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects
Agency is also developing advanced machine code analysis
capabilities that DOD should carefully track.
The importance of better automated code analysis to the
cyber mission is clear. The Clinton administration's Critical
Infrastructure Protection Plan called for the development of
advanced tools for code vulnerability analysis. In 2003, the
NSA Information Assurance Director testified before the
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Science, and Research and
Development of the Select Committee on Homeland Security of the
House of Representatives that ``a significant cybersecurity
improvement over the next decade will be found in enhancing our
ability to find and eliminate malicious code in large software
applications . . . There is little coordinated effort today to
develop tools and techniques to examine effectively either
source or executable software. I believe that this problem is
significant enough to warrant a considerable effort.''
Yet DOD has never invested in tool development. The
committee directs the USD(AT&L) to evaluate the state of the
art in commercial and government tools for automated software
code analysis and reverse engineering, and determine whether
DOD should initiate a focused tool development program. The
committee requests a briefing on this evaluation at the time of
the submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2014.
Competition in connection with Department of Defense data link systems
(sec. 926)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics (USD)(AT&L)):
(1) To develop an inventory of all data links in use
and in development in the Department of Defense;
(2) To conduct a business case analysis of each data
link program and make a determination whether there is
adequate competition in development, maintenance,
upgrade, and new procurement, and if not, whether the
program should be opened up to competition;
(3) For each data link program that is identified for
increased competition, to develop a plan that addresses
how any policy, legal, programmatic, or technical
barriers to competition will be overcome; and
(4) For each program where competition is determined
to be inadvisable, to prepare a justification for that
conclusion.
The committee expects the Under Secretary to develop a
working definition of the term ``data link systems'',
consistent with existing understanding, for the purpose of
identifying systems to be included in the inventory required by
this provision.
In conducting the business case analyses, this provision
would require the USD(AT&L) to solicit the views of industry on
the merits and feasibility of opening up programs to
competition. This provision would require the USD(AT&L) to
provide a report to Congress in conjunction with the submission
of the fiscal year 2015 budget request. Finally, the provision
would require the Comptroller General to provide an assessment
of the report to Congress.
Integration of critical signals intelligence capabilities (sec. 927)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
(ISR) Task Force to develop a plan to integrate multiple
technical signals intelligence (SIGINT) capabilities together
to satisfy requirements to detect, identify, track, and
precisely locate communications equipment from airborne
platforms. Multiple program offices in multiple organizations
are working on this problem, and each of them has developed
technology with separate industry partners that solve a piece--
but only a piece--of the overall problem.
One of the programs provides full identification but
inaccurate geolocation and no tracking. Another provides
partial identification and precise location, but only sporadic
tracking. A third approach provides tracking and precise
location but no identification. The Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency and the Army are working on one approach with
one vendor, another part of the Army is pursuing another with a
second company, and the Air Force is exploiting technology
developed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln
Laboratory.
ISR Task Force staff are aware of the need for an
integrated capability, and understand that a joint technical or
operational solution is needed if none of the alternatives can
be readily modified to achieve the ability to detect and
prosecute high-value targets. This SIGINT capability would be
able to instantly cue an imaging sensor, such as a full-motion
video or wide-area motion imagery camera, to enable persistent
tracking.
The provision recommended by the committee would require
the separate services and organizations sponsoring the
different but complementary approaches to support the ISR Task
Force Director in developing the plan. Finally, the provision
reiterates the mission and role played by the ISR Task Force in
identifying and overseeing ISR initiatives in support of
deployed forces.
Collection and analysis of network flow data (sec. 928)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) Chief Information Officer (CIO), in
coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence (USDI), and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy to take advantage of the research and development
activities and capabilities of the Community Data Center (CDC)
managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to
enhance DOD's capabilities to collect, analyze, and store so-
called network flow data records. The purpose of the provision
is to improve DOD's capabilities to handle its own voluminous
flow data records, and to potentially make this technology
available for the defense of the country voluntarily through
the Tier 1 Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
In a report to Congress required by section 934 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383), the Secretary of Defense stated that
``the Department recognizes that deterring malicious actors
from conducting cyber attacks is complicated by the difficulty
of verifying the location from which an attack was launched and
by the need to identify the attacker from among a wide variety
and high number of potential actors.'' This attribution problem
stems from lack of visibility into events and traffic taking
place on the Internet.
In speeches and testimony to the committee, General
Alexander, Commander of U.S. Cyber Command, has clearly stated
that the government is not going to be monitoring the
communications entering, leaving, or traversing the United
States to detect cyber attacks. The committee concurs that such
monitoring would be inappropriate and, in many cases, unlawful.
However, General Alexander has also indicated clearly his
conviction that, in the event of a nation-state attack on the
country that Cyber Command is called upon to defeat, it is
essential that Cyber Command be able to ``see [the attack] in
time to stop it.'' If Cyber Command cannot see the attack
developing, ``we're not going to block it.'' General Alexander
has indicated that the government will rely on the private
sector--including the ISPs--to help provide that detection
capability and warning.
The problem is that the ISPs currently do not collect the
data necessary to reliably perform this type of early warning
and attack assessment function. In traditional telephone
service, the service providers collect and retain records of
every call that is made--the ``to/from,'' the time of the call,
its duration, and the like. Under Federal Communications
Commission rules, such call data records are comprehensively
collected and retained for a long period.
In the case of the Internet, the analogue to the call data
record is network flow data--for example, the ``to/from'' of an
email, the time it was sent, its size, and so forth. However,
in contrast to telephony, the ISPs do not routinely or
comprehensively collect or keep this net flow data, because
there has never been a business reason for doing so. Over time,
the ISPs have learned that such records are useful for
cybersecurity, and have invested in dedicated equipment and
specially developed analysis tools to capture and analyze them.
But the amount of metadata for Internet traffic is staggering--
orders of magnitude larger than telephony--and so even today
the ISPs only gather records on a relatively small percentage
of the traffic traversing their networks. What they do collect
is immensely useful for cybersecurity, to be sure--this
capability is a mainstay of ISP managed security services, used
for identifying intrusions and compromised computers. But
because the traffic records are only sampled, it is impossible
to reliably and comprehensively detect threats, identify the
origin of attacks, identify the command and control nodes
controlling the operations, and provide early warning and
characterization of major attacks in real time.
Providing warning and situational awareness for defending
DOD networks, federal and state government networks, and those
of critical infrastructure will require substantially greater
net flow data collection and analysis. It is incumbent on DOD
to invest in technology to make it easier and less expensive to
achieve the scale required for the private sector to
potentially assist the government in defending the country.
DISA's CDC is already the focus for DOD's research on the
comprehensive collection and analysis of flow data records on
the traffic that enters and leaves the Department. The CDC
hosts technologies developed and being investigated by DISA and
USDI. The committee believes that other commercial companies
have additional capabilities to apply to this problem.
Department of Defense use of National Security Agency cloud computing
database and intelligence community cloud computing
infrastructure and services (sec. 929)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of the National Security Agency's (NSA) Accumulo cloud
computing database by other Department of Defense (DOD)
components after September 30, 2013, unless the Chief
Information Officer certifies that there are no viable
commercial open source databases that have the security
features of Accumulo, or that Accumulo itself has become a
successful open source database project. The provision also
would require that Department of Defense and intelligence
community officials coordinate fully on the use by DOD
components of cloud computing infrastructure and services
offered by the intelligence community for purposes other than
intelligence analysis to ensure consistency with the DOD
information technology efficiencies initiative, data center and
server consolidation plans, and cybersecurity plans and
policies.
The committee applauds NSA's decision to adopt open source
architectures and software for most of its cloud computing
development. However, the committee disagrees with NSA's
decision to develop its own cloud computing database--called
Accumulo--rather than adapt an open source version of the
Google BigTable product. The committee understands that NSA
decided to build a government solution several years ago
because the open source systems lacked security features that
NSA considers essential. In hindsight, the committee believes
it would have been smarter for NSA to have worked with industry
and the open source community to add NSA's security features to
the open source database systems. Indeed, the committee
believes that NSA should pursue that course now.
The downside of using a government-unique database is that,
compared to open source products, there will be far fewer
developers contributing to technology advances, and all of the
applications, analytic tools, and functionality that the open
source community and commercial industry are developing for
cloud computing will not be compatible or interoperable with
the NSA database, depriving the government of valuable
innovation. The committee believes it is very likely that the
rapidly expanding and innovating cloud computing industry will
pass NSA by in a hurry, with lagging performance and higher
costs. The consequences would not be confined to NSA, since the
Army intelligence community has already adopted the NSA cloud
architecture, and NSA is strongly urging the entire Department
of Defense to do likewise. One of NSA's arguments is that the
security features of Accumulo are essential for the
cybersecurity of DOD as a whole.
NSA is making an effort to heal its divergence from the
open source community by proposing Accumulo as an open source
project under the Apache Foundation as a competitor to existing
Apache Foundation open source databases like HBase and
Cassandra, which are widely used and supported in industry.
The committee believes it is important to ensure that there
are options available if Accumulo does not in fact become a
viable and widely supported open source project. The committee
is aware of commercial interest in the cell-level data tagging
security features that NSA built into Accumulo. These features
should be as useful to industry clients who need to protect and
control access to the data resident in cloud facilities as they
are to the intelligence community and DOD.
If Accumulo is successful, or if the commercial open source
community produces nothing comparable to Accumulo's security
features, this provision would permit Accumulo to be used in
DOD outside of NSA. But if Accumulo is not an open source
success, and if industry follows NSA's security lead, the
Department should use a commercial product. This provision
would give NSA almost 2 years since it made the Accumulo open
source proposal to Apache to succeed. The deadline in this
provision is also sufficiently distant to enable DOD components
and industry to plan accordingly.
Under the direction of the Director of National
Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and NSA are
planning to provide cloud infrastructure and software ``as a
service'' to all of the intelligence community. As noted, NSA
is offering a government implementation of open source
standards. CIA is offering a competitively awarded commercial
solution. These cloud services would cover all manner of
computing needs and capabilities, not just intelligence
analysis. This provision is also intended to ensure that DOD
components' use of these cloud services is consistent with DOD
information technology policies and plans. The committee notes
that the software services that the CIA may offer to DOD
customers could include analytic databases like HBase and
Cassandra, and other commercial open source products,
potentially providing an alternative to Accumulo.
Electro-optical imagery (sec. 930)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence
to sustain through fiscal year 2013 the commercial imagery
collection capacity planned under the Enhanced View program
approved in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
This provision would require the Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to conduct a comprehensive analysis of imagery
requirements for the Department of Defense (DOD). The provision
would also require a study of the potential role of commercial-
class imagery in meeting the needs of the government. This
provision would require the completion of these studies in time
to inform decisions on the fiscal year 2014 budget and the
fiscal year 2015 budget request.
This provision would require the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) Director to examine whether the administration's
proposed actions on commercial imagery are consistent with
Presidential policy directives, the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR), and statute, all of which use similar
language regarding the use of commercial products and
capabilities. The President's most recent National Space
Policy, for example, directs the Executive Branch to ``purchase
and use commercial space capabilities and services to the
maximum practical extent when such capabilities and services
are available in the marketplace and meet United States
Government requirements [and] modify commercial space
capabilities and services to meet government requirements when
existing commercial capabilities and services do not fully meet
these requirements and the potential modification represents a
more cost-effective and timely acquisition approach for the
government.''
Similarly, the FAR requires government agencies to
``determine if commercial items or, to the extent commercial
items suitable to meet the agency's needs are not available,
nondevelopmental items are available that meet the agency's
requirements, could be modified to meet the agency's
requirements, or could meet the agency's requirements if those
requirements were modified to a reasonable extent.'' Very
similar language is contained in section 2377 of title 10,
United States Code.
The committee has been unhappy with Executive Branch
planning for imagery collection from space for years. A series
of very expensive programmatic debacles by the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO) was followed by years of chaotic
lurches in policy and program planning that reflected deep
conflicts among the organizations responsible for operational
requirements, acquisition oversight in DOD, oversight of
intelligence in DOD, the imagery functional manager in the
intelligence community, the NRO, and the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence (ODNI).
Several years ago, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council
stated that DOD required a more survivable wartime capability
to collect wide-area imagery at moderate resolution, and
advocated a larger constellation of commercial satellites to
meet this requirement.
The Vice Chairman subsequently proposed that commercial
satellites, with some performance modifications, be acquired as
the primary means of collecting electro-optical imagery from
space for DOD and the intelligence community, based on modeling
and analysis conducted through the Joint Staff.
The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) rejected that
proposal in favor of evolving legacy government-developed
capabilities and attempting to rapidly develop new ones. This
debate was carried to the White House before it was short-
circuited by an agreement struck between the DNI and the
Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense agreed that DOD
would not challenge the NRO's plan to acquire new imaging
capabilities. But the Secretary of Defense concluded that the
DNI's plan presented significant risks of gaps in capability
and that prudence dictated an expansion of commercial imaging
capability to meet DOD wartime requirements and to mitigate the
risk of collection shortfalls.
This plan was put into effect at a vigorous pace. The
government appealed to the commercial data provider companies
to more than double their on-orbit collection capacity in a
short time with the promise that the government would consume a
large proportion of that capacity over a 10-year period. The
commercial data providers, on the basis of this government
commitment, proceeded towards adding the equivalent of two more
satellites that would be available to meet government
requirements.
Meanwhile, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
(SSCI) continued to study the potential for commercial-class
satellites to meet all of the government's needs. The committee
commissioned an evaluation by its scientific advisory body,
building on the previous assessments of the former Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that concluded that
enhanced commercial satellites could meet or exceed the
overwhelming majority of electro-optical imaging requirements
at less cost and risk, and that such an approach would provide
greater resilience and survivability, and a broader,
competitive industrial base.
The DNI then sponsored its own analysis, which concluded
that a larger number of smaller commercial satellites would not
be less expensive than the satellite capabilities the
government planned to acquire. The Senate Committee on Armed
Services directed an additional analysis by the Joint Staff and
the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office to establish
a new requirements baseline and the cost of meeting those
requirements with alternative spacecraft designs in the
classified annex to the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). DOD declined to conduct
this analysis.
After deciding that commercial-class imaging satellites
should not replace the satellites built under NRO program
management, the ODNI and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence (USDI) in late 2011 took the position that the
commercial augmentation program approved by former Secretary of
Defense Gates was not needed and should be terminated in order
to save money. This proposal was not based on a new
requirements assessment, or a risk assessment, but nonetheless
was presented to Congress in the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2013. The Office of Management and Budget allowed
the drastic cutback to commercial imagery to be presented to
Congress with the fiscal year 2013 budget, but directed ODNI,
USDI, and the Joint Staff to study whether this action was
warranted.
This obviously reverses the proper order of events.
Appropriate reexamination of the foundation for a major program
established by the Secretary of Defense and the Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should precede a decision to
terminate it.
The need for care is underscored by the fact that the plan
presented in the budget request would result in the elimination
of one of the two competing commercial data provider companies
from government procurement, and could result in the collapse
of one of the companies or a merger or acquisition. In that
eventuality, it appears that the government's impetuous actions
would be the determining cause: it was the government that
encouraged the two companies to dramatically expand their
collection capacity, including by borrowing money to accelerate
satellite acquisitions; and when the government then just as
suddenly announced that it no longer wanted this additional
capacity, the stock price of both companies plummeted. While
the government is not legally liable, the government's wild
swing in demand has exposed two healthy companies to financial
risk, and, if one is forced to exit the business, will lead to
a monopoly in the market and a narrowing of the government's
options for future procurements.
The committee believes that the status quo ante should be
restored, as far as possible, until additional studies are
conducted to allow both the Executive Branch and Congress to
make informed decisions.
The committee believes that there is ample evidence that
commercial imaging capabilities could today satisfy a large
majority of military requirements, and, if modified for
enhancements, could meet all but the most stressing
requirements. In the case of the most stressing requirements,
the question is whether the benefit of meeting them is
justified by the marginal cost of doing so. As noted above, the
ODNI study concluded that meeting the government's needs for
electro-optical imagery from space can be accomplished better
and at somewhat less cost by a government acquisition of a
different design. The committee believes that additional,
independent analysis of this contention is essential.
The ODNI and USDI concluded that the government is
acquiring capabilities to collect more imagery than is
required, and recommended lopping off commercial acquisitions.
In light of the pressures on the budget, and the policy
expressed by former Secretary of Defense Gates to seek the ``80
percent solution'' rather than ``exquisite'' ones, three
questions need to be addressed:
(1) Is the originally planned collection capacity actually
in excess of DOD's wartime requirements?
(2) If yes, is the correct response to reduce commercial
acquisitions or to scale back or eliminate the government-
developed solution? and
(3) If no, should the original Enhanced View commercial
imagery program be restored and sustained or should the
government-developed solution be expanded?
The committee also directs the CBO Director to make use of
performance modeling results and analyses already available
from the Joint Staff, industry, and the SSCI; and cost
modeling, existing cost estimates, and actuals from ongoing
programs in government and industry. As necessary and
appropriate, the Director should conduct new cost modeling and
estimating to ensure that a variety of reasonable assumptions
and acquisition approaches are considered to achieve confidence
in cost comparisons.
This provision would authorize $125.0 million to sustain
the level of commercial imagery collection at roughly the level
that will be maintained throughout fiscal year 2012 and through
the first quarter of fiscal year 2013 through existing Service
Level Agreements.
Software licenses of the Department of Defense (sec. 931)
The Department of Defense's (DOD) $37.0 billion information
technology (IT) budget request constitutes almost half of the
Federal Government's overall IT budget for fiscal year 2013.
Given the size of this investment, it is important that the
Department rationalize current IT outlays and identify those
investments that need to be integrated with other solutions or
curtailed to ensure the most efficient use of resources. One
area of duplication and inefficiency identified by the
Government Accountability Office and by the Department is that
of software licenses. In addition, the committee has recognized
that application and software reduction is a key component of
IT efficiencies, as referenced in section 2867 (b)(1)(A)(v) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81).
The committee recommends a provision that requires the DOD
Chief Information Officer (CIO) to conduct, within 180 days of
the enactment of this Act, a Department-wide inventory of
software licenses, examine license utilization rates, and
assess the current and future Departmental need for software
licenses. Based on the results of this assessment, the CIO
shall establish a plan to align the number and type of software
licenses with the needs of the Department. Upon completion of
the inventory and assessment, the CIO or their designee shall
brief the results to the congressional defense committees.
Immediately upon completion of the inventory and
assessment, the CIO is directed to provide the data and
findings to the Comptroller General of the United States. Not
later than May 1, 2014, the Comptroller General will deliver to
the congressional defense committees a review of the
Department's assessment and performance plan.
The committee recognizes that defining the scope of
software license duplication throughout the military
departments, components, and major commands will be
challenging, and urges the CIO to apply the utmost diligence in
the undertaking of this inventory and assessment. Lastly, the
committee acknowledges that the CIO may need the ability to
grant exceptions to certain instances of software, depending
upon individual circumstances, such as classification.
Defense Clandestine Service (sec. 932)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the obligation of appropriated Military Intelligence Program
(MIP) funds in fiscal year 2013 to exceed the number of
personnel conducting or supporting human intelligence within
the Department of Defense (DOD) as of April 20, 2012. This
provision would also require the Office of Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation (CAPE) to provide an estimate of the total
cost of the Defense Clandestine Service (DCS) to the
congressional defense and intelligence committees. This cost
estimate should look at the total costs of the DCS, including
whether that cost is incurred in the MIP, in the National
Intelligence Program, or in other non-intelligence funding for
the Department of Defense (e.g. Major Force Program 11 funding
for U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)). The estimate
should include costs in the out years of the future-years
defense program and beyond, especially those associated with
closing existing personnel basing; creating new basing
arrangements; and supporting overseas deployments.
The provision also would require the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence (USDI) to provide a report to the
congressional defense and intelligence committees by February
1, 2013, that provides or explains:
where DOD case officers will be deployed or
based and a schedule for those deployments;
certification that the prospective locations
can and will accommodate these deployments;
the objectives established for each military
service, USSOCOM, and the Defense Intelligence Agency
(DIA) to improve career management for case officers,
and the plans to achieve the objectives of the DCS; and
any Memoranda of Agreement or Understanding
necessary to implement planned reforms with other
departments and agencies and between DOD components.
The committee appreciates the fact that the USDI and the
Director of the DIA, in initiating the DCS, intend to make
reforms to the Defense Human Intelligence (HUMINT) Service to
correct longstanding problems. These problems include
inefficient utilization of personnel trained at significant
expense to conduct clandestine HUMINT; poor or non-existent
career management for trained HUMINT personnel; cover
challenges; and unproductive deployment locations. Multiple
studies since the end of the Cold War document these
deficiencies, and they led the Commission on the Roles and
Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community,
chaired by two former Secretaries of Defense, to recommend
transferring to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) all
responsibilities for the clandestine recruitment of human
sources, utilizing military personnel on detail from the DOD as
necessary.
The committee notes that President Bush authorized 50
percent growth in the CIA's case officer workforce, which
followed significant growth under President Clinton. Since 9/
11, DOD's case officer ranks have grown substantially as well.
The committee is concerned that, despite this expansion and the
winding down of two overseas conflicts that required large
HUMINT resources, DOD believes that its needs are not being
met.
The committee concludes that DOD needs to demonstrate that
it can improve the management of clandestine HUMINT before
undertaking any further expansion. Furthermore, if DOD is able
to utilize existing resources much more effectively, the case
could be made that investment in this area could decline,
rather than remain steady or grow, to assist the Department in
managing its fiscal and personnel challenges.
Authority for short-term extension of lease for aircraft supporting the
Blue Devil intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
program (sec. 933)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of the Air Force to extend or renew the current lease
of aircraft to support the Blue Devil intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) program. Section 2401 of
title 10, United States Code, limits such leases to 5 years.
The lease for the Air Force Blue Devil ISR aircraft deployed
first in Iraq and now in Afghanistan will expire in September
2013. This ISR system is extremely useful, having contributed
directly to the take-down of large numbers of high-value
targets in the Kandahar region. Theater commanders have
requested that this asset be sustained indefinitely in theater.
The committee is deeply concerned that, despite a year's notice
from the committee that plans had to be made to address this
lease expiration, the Department of Defense has yet to decide
on a definite course of action to sustain this capability.
The committee understands that the Air Force leadership and
the ISR Task Force are seriously examining alternatives to
comply with section 2401, including buying the existing Blue
Devil aircraft, buying new C-12 aircraft, modifying existing
Liberty aircraft, and modifying the Reaper unmanned aerial
vehicles equipped with Gorgon Stare wide-area motion imagery
systems.
Based on information that the Air Force provided to the
committee, the most attractive option is to purchase additional
C-12 aircraft. This option would deliver the needed capability
the soonest. All other options under consideration take
considerably more time, or would entail reducing deployed ISR
support in order to modify existing aircraft, or would not
satisfy requirements.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in
coordination with the Director of the ISR Task Force, to
provide a recommendation on a way forward by September 1, 2012,
along with a program schedule that would enable Congress to set
an appropriate end date for the lease extension.
Sense of the Senate on potential security risks to Department of
Defense networks (sec. 934)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate regarding potential risks to the security
of Department of Defense (DOD) networks from the incorporation
of equipment and software from foreign sources, and the need
for DOD authority and processes to mitigate such risks beyond
those that already exist for covered National Security Systems
acquired by DOD. The committee provided existing authority to
address cybersecurity supply chain risks to DOD National
Security Systems in section 806 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
The provision acknowledges the difficulty involved in
blocking sales of information technology systems and services
due to concerns about cybersecurity while maintaining our
commitment to free trade and fair and transparent competition.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
National Language Service Corps (sec. 941)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (52
U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to
establish and maintain a National Language Service Corps to
provide a pool of civilian personnel with foreign language
skills who agree to provide foreign language services to the
Department of Defense or another department or agency of the
United States.
Report on education and training and promotion rates for pilots of
remotely piloted aircraft (sec. 942)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees by January 31,
2013, on remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), pilot promotion, and
education rates. The provision specifies that the report
includes the following elements: an in-depth analysis of the
causes for persistently lower average promotion and education
rates of RPA pilots; the long-term impact on the Air Force if
these low rates are sustained; a plan to remedy these
imbalances; and near-term and longer-term actions the Air Force
intends to undertake to implement the plan. The report must
also provide an explanation of any direct or indirect impact of
plan implementation on the achievement and sustainment of the
65 RPA combat air patrol objective.
The committee is very concerned about the consistently
downward trend in promotion rates of RPA operators. Over the
course of the last 5 years, promotion percentages from Majors
Promotion Boards have declined from 96 percent to 78 percent,
compared to a consistent range of between 96 and 91 percent for
their peers. Education rates also consistently lag those for
manned aircraft pilots at all levels. It is simply unacceptable
for service as an RPA operator to be relegated to substandard
status in terms of personnel qualifications or treatment. The
committee expects the Air Force to vigorously address this
problem.
Budget Items
Operationally Responsive Space Funding
For Fiscal Year 2013, the Department of Defense proposed to
de-authorize the Operationally Responsive Space Office and move
$10,000,000 from the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS)
program (PE 0604857F, line 54) to three other programs,
$3,000,000 to the Technology Transition Program, PE 0604858F,
line 55, $2 million to the Space Based Infrared Program,
PE0604441F, line 69, $2,000,000 to Space Control Technology, PE
0603438F, line 32, $1,500,000 to Advanced Extremely High
Frequency satellite program, PE 0603430F, line 30 and
$1,500,000 to the Global Positioning System III Operational
Control Segment, PE 0603423F, line 112. The Committee rejects
this transfer and restores the $10,000,000 to the ORS PE
0604857F.
The Committee increases PE 0604857F by $35,000,000 to
$45,000,000 total to continue working with the COCOMs and in
particular PACOM on building responsive low cost satellites
similar to ORS-1. This is in addition to the legislative
provision which direct the ORS program to build a low cost
weather satellite from the weather satellite follow on program
funding.
Space Test Program
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 included
$10,051,000 in PE 65864F for the Space Test Program. This is a
decrease in funding from the $47,926,000 requested and
authorized for fiscal year 2012. The Department of Defense has
also proposed to terminate the program. This low cost program,
created by the Commander, Air Force Systems Command, General
Schriever, in 1965, has been the principal mechanism that has
put experimental payloads into space. By offering low cost
access to space this program has led to a family of important
civil and military satellite systems we rely on today,
including Milstar, Advanced Extremely High Frequency, Global
Positioning System, Defense Support Program, Defense Satellite
Communications System, Tracking & Data Relay Satellite, and the
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. More importantly this
program serves as the space gateway to universities and
military academies, and for their students to put payloads into
space and in turn create our future cadre of space leaders.
When combined with the proposed termination of the
Operationally Responsive Space program, the termination of
these two efforts amounts to no more than $170.0 million but
has many times the impact on the ability of the Department of
Defense to innovate and lower the cost of future satellite
systems. The committee rejects the proposed termination of the
Space Test Program and increases the program by $37,875,000 to
restore it to the prior fiscal year's funding level.
The committee admonishes the Department to look carefully
at the combined effects of terminating two programs that have
synergistically worked together to lead innovations in national
security space while dramatically reducing costs.
Items of Special Interest
Determination of accuracy of spectrum auction proceeds
The committee directs the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to review past spectrum auctions (including those for
national security systems) performed by Executive Branch
agencies to determine historical differences between initial
relocation cost estimates and actual auction proceeds. As part
of this review, the committee directs the GAO to update its
2001 report to the congressional defense committees on the
auction of the 1755-1850 MHz band. The committee asks the GAO
to determine if the cost of vacating or sharing subsets of the
1755-1850 MHz band is sufficiently captured in estimates and
whether auction proceeds are able to compensate vacating such
subsets. The committee directs an initial briefing no later
than February 28, 2013.
Development of cyber security expertise and partnerships
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
continue to support multi-disciplinary programs of study and
research that focus on developing U.S. cyber security expertise
and tackling vital cyber security issues, such as the
protection of critical infrastructure on which the Department
of Defense relies for critical mission capability, and which
the Department would be called upon to defend in the event of a
cyber attack on the United States.
Special effort should be made to glean best practices from
already established programs, nationally and internationally,
at military and civilian organizations and institutions of
higher education. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees within 180 days of the enactment of this Act on
potential partnerships and methods for gleaning best practices
for personnel development.
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program
Since the committee first raised concerns about the
Department of Defense's strategy to acquire space launch under
the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program last year,
the Department has moved in a positive direction. First,
whereas the space portfolio appeared disconnected from the Air
Force's acquisition oversight apparatus, this portfolio is now
properly aligned under the Air Force senior acquisition
executive. This will help ensure that space launch programs are
subjected to appropriate oversight and acquisition discipline.
Second, the newly designated Program Executive Officer (PEO)
for Space Launch will be able to focus more on cost, schedule,
and performance than before, when the PEO space portfolio
encompassed space launch and did not allow for sufficient focus
on EELV issues. Third, whereas the System Program Director
(SPD) and program managers in this portfolio previously focused
on operational mission success, there now appears to be an
interest in achieving a proper balance on both mission success
and cost. Finally, whereas the SPD tended to have a ``stand-
off'' approach to potential new entrants and little interest in
creating a competitive environment conducive to driving the
costs of space launch down, today the Air Force appears
amendable to embracing new entrants and the prospect of
competition more and has developed a path to certification.
The committee's original concerns arose from concerns
raised by prospective new entrants that the 2011 proposed block
buy of launch vehicles from the incumbent EELV provider would
effectively freeze them out of the EELV launch market until
2020. This concern was magnified by a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report in September 2011, that recommended that
the Department assess engine costs and mission assurance
activities; reassess the length of the proposed block buy; and
consider how to address broader launch acquisition and
technology development issues. With the Department having
generally concurred with GAO's recommendations, Congress
required the Department to explain how it intends to implement
each of GAO's recommendations, or explain how it will otherwise
address the deficiencies identified in GAO's report. The
Department's deadline was March 31, 2012, and the report was
delivered to Congress April 19, 2012. The committee understands
that GAO is currently assessing the information contained in
the report as required by section 839 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
In complying with the requirement under section 839 that
EELV be re-designated as a major defense acquisition program
(MDAP) or otherwise provide to Congress and the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics all of
the reports on cost, schedule, and performance that would be
required if it were designated as an MDAP, on April 12, 2012,
the Department notified the committee that the EELV program
exceeded the ``critical'' cost thresholds specified under
section 2433 of title 10, United States Code (``Nunn-McCurdy'')
for both Program Acquisition Unit Cost and Average Procurement
Cost. The breach was based on the program's 2007 current
baseline estimate and the 2004 original baseline estimate
exceeding 25 and 50 percent respectively. The committee
understands that the Department will certify to Congress by
July 13, 2012, that the necessary steps have been taken to meet
the requirements of section 2433(b) of title 10, United States
Code.
As part of the Department's effort to restructure the EELV
program to provide cost transparency and promote competition
from new entrants, the Department has issued a Request for
Proposal (RFP) to the incumbent EELV contractor that will allow
it to obtain and carefully analyze certified cost data to build
a pricing matrix consisting of the number of cores versus years
over the future-years defense program (FYDP). This matrix will
help the Department structure a contract to achieve optimal
pricing while allowing for ``on-ramps'' of new entrants who
meet the Department's new entrant mission assurance criteria.
The Department has told the committee that it is
restructuring the Launch Services contract from a stand-alone
contract with the incumbent EELV provider to one that is
integrated with the acquisition of the booster, mission
support, and payload integration to reflect the total cost to
launch. This integrated contract will be used to compare
amongst multiple competitors. The committee has been concerned
about the distinction between Launch Capability and Launch
Services that have been structured into the EELV program and
how this distinction renders opaque to congressional oversight
of the program's true overall costs. For this reason, the
committee will ensure that whatever decision is made by the Air
Force regarding the next EELV contract is not analytically
based inappropriately on this distinction. The committee
intends to closely examine how the Air Force addresses this
issue more broadly as its effort to restructure this program to
accommodate competition matures, and will address this issue
further as needed.
To further assist new entrants into the EELV market, the
Department will use a bridging contract called ``Orbital
Suborbital Program-3'' or ``OSP-3'' which will be used to
launch low-risk national security payloads and in turn step the
new entrants through the Department's mission assurance
criteria.
Generally, the committee is encouraged by the steps that
the Department has taken to help control EELV costs and
encourage new entrants to provide competition in the EELV
market. The committee has been informed that the Department
will have a final EELV contract structure in July 2012, that
they believe will optimize cost per launch with the incumbent
EELV contractor while providing ``on-ramps'' for new entrants
who satisfy mission assurance criteria under the OSP-3
contract. Given the utility of competition to ensuring the
affordability of access to space, the committee believes that
whatever contracting structure is ultimately selected must be
sufficiently flexible to provide meaningful and realistic
opportunities for duly certified new entrants to participate in
the EELV program at any point within the selected contract
duration that a new entrant (if any) is duly certified within
that selected contract duration.
The committee will carefully review the restructured EELV
contract that the Department will present in July 2012, in
light of all of the concerns it has raised to date to ensure
that national security access to space is maintained, while
balanced by bringing competition into the EELV launch market.
Navigation location and tracking in GPS-denied environments
Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) based navigation systems
have become critical to mission success for the Department of
Defense in areas such as situational awareness and precision
weapon employment. Command and control of U.S. forces is
dependent on reliable and accurate GPS signal reception. Our
forces are currently operating in complex terrain and
environments which can, on occasion, introduce unreliable GPS
navigation signals for the warfighter. Current GPS navigation
systems can be challenged with line-of-sight constraints such
as mountains, dense tree cover, and complex structured
environments and have minimal, if any, ability to navigate and/
or track inside buildings, caves, underground structures and
other challenging locations.
Additionally, future force initiatives recognize the
possibility that a technologically advanced foe could disrupt
satellite based systems such as GPS. Reliable location through
the GPS satellite constellation facilitates uninterrupted use
of ground-to-ground precision missiles, navigation, and command
and control. Recent events have pointed to hostile nation
states introducing jamming in an effort to block or degrade GPS
signals. The Department of Defense must develop and incorporate
training and contingency operations in a GPS denial environment
to ensure mission success.
Reports on airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
requirements and investment strategy
The committee is aware of the increased demand for
persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
resources to meet each combatant command's full range of
military operations. The committee acknowledges the Department
of Defense has had to make difficult decisions on the
acquisition, procurement, and allocation of its persistent ISR
assets due to fiscal constraints alone.
However, Congress has not been provided a formal report
outlining the Department of Defense's long-term investment
strategy to develop, procure, and sustain the necessary ISR
platforms to meet these ISR collection requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, working in conjunction with the combatant
commands, to provide the congressional defense and intelligence
committees a classified report, not later than 120 days after
the enactment of this Act, that identifies the enduring
requirements for persistent ISR collection in support of each
combatant command's full range of military operations. Further,
the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Under Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence, working in conjunction with the
service secretaries, to provide a long-term investment
strategy, describing the fixed-wing persistent ISR capabilities
necessary in both permissive and non-permissive environments to
meet those collection requirements and the resources necessary
to develop, procure or sustain those platforms. This investment
strategy shall also be provided concurrently in a written
classified report to the congressional defense and intelligence
committees not later than 120 days after the enactment of this
Act.
Report on cost savings in the Joint Space Operations Center Mission
System Program
The committee believes 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 is aware that the Air Force has
made changes in its acquisition process, and 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 also expects the Air Force to
utilize and achieve cost savings by pursuing a tailored
incremental acquisition approach that leverages investment in
existing government prototypes and industry applications to
rapidly deliver needed capabilities.
The committee directs the Air Force to provide a report
within 180 days of enactment of this Act that: (1) describes
the government and commercial technologies that can be
incorporated into the Joint Space Operations Center Mission
System Program; (2) quantifies the cost savings that can be
achieved by using commercial items to the maximum extent
practical; and (3) summarizes how the acquisition strategy will
incorporate commercial technologies.
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 $5.0 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.
Authority to transfer of funds to the National Nuclear Security
Administration to sustain nuclear weapons modernization (sec.
1002)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the transfer of, subject to regular reprogramming guidelines,
$150.0 million from the Department of Defense to the National
Nuclear Security Administration if the fiscal year 2013
authorization and appropriations levels fall below the level
outlined for fiscal year 2013 as found in the report from
section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), which is $7.9 billion.
Audit readiness of Department of Defense statements of budgetary
resources (sec. 1003)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1003 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to incorporate the goal
established by the Secretary of Defense of validating the
statement of budgetary resources of the Department of Defense
(DOD) as ready for audit by the end of fiscal year 2014. The
provision would require the DOD Chief Management Officer and
the Chief Management Officers of the military departments to
ensure that the plans to achieve this goal minimize one-time
fixes and manual work-arounds, are sustainable and affordable,
and will not delay full auditability of DOD's financial
statements.
Report on effects of budget sequestration on the Department of Defense
(sec. 1004)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
certain findings and require the Secretary of Defense to submit
to the congressional defense committees a report no later than
August 15, 2012 on the impact on the Department of Defense of
the sequestration of funds authorized and appropriated for
fiscal year 2013 for the Department if automatically triggered
on January 2, 2013.
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities
Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to law
enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities
(sec. 1011)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1
fiscal year the support by joint task forces under section
1022(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), as most recently amended
by section 1004 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law
112-81).
The committee notes that the Department of Defense is
currently using this authority to conduct only one operation.
While the committee is pleased to learn of the Department's
judicious use of this authority, the committee also believes
there are additional activities that could potentially be
conducted, particularly in Northwest Africa.
Requirement for biennial certification on provision of support for
counter-drug activities to certain foreign governments (sec.
1012)
This section would amend 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), to require biennial certification rather than annual
certification for the Department of Defense to provide
additional support for counterdrug activities to certain
foreign governments.
Authority to support the unified counterdrug and counterterrorism
campaign in Colombia (sec. 1013)
The committee recommends a provision that would permit, for
1 fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense to expend not more than
$50.0 million to support the unified counterdrug and
counterterrorism campaign of the Government of Colombia. The
provision would permit the Secretary to provide: (1) logistics
support, services, and supplies; (2) the types of support
authorized under section 1004(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510), as
amended; and (3) the types of support authorized under 1033(c)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 105-85), as amended. The provision would prohibit
U.S. personnel from participating in any combat operation in
connection with assistance provided under this authority.
Further, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report on any assistance provided pursuant to this
provision to the congressional defense committees on an annual
basis.
The committee notes that the provision is a modification of
section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as
amended most recently by section 1007 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). The
committee's intent is to permit the Secretary to continue all
ongoing operations in support of the security forces of the
Government of Colombia, including advise and assist operations
which have been an important element of U.S. support to the
Government of Colombia. The committee's underlying intent is to
enhance congressional oversight of these activities and provide
additional transparency to outside observers without degrading
ongoing operations. The committee recognizes that, although the
Government of Colombia has made significant progress combating
narcotics trafficking and designated terrorist organizations,
this authority is still required to assist the Government of
Colombia consolidate the notable gains made over the past
decade.
Quarterly reports on use of funds in the Drug Interdiction and Counter-
Drug Activities, Defense-wide account (sec. 1014)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit on a quarterly basis reports to
the congressional defense committees setting forth, by project
code, a description of all of the expenditures of funds and
expenditures to support foreign counterdrug activities from the
Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities Defense-wide
account. Further, the provision would repeal section 1022 of
the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), as most recently amended
by section 1008 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Retirement of naval vessels (sec. 1021)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Chief of Naval Operations to produce a report that would set
forth a comprehensive description of the current requirements
of the Navy for combatant vessels of the Navy, including
submarines. The provision would also require that, if the
number of these vessels is less than 313 ships, the report
would have to include the justification of the Chief of Naval
Operations for that smaller number, and an explanation of how
that smaller number is consistent with the recently revised
strategic guidance issued by the President and the Secretary of
Defense in 2012.
Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) conveyed the sense of
Congress that ``the Navy should meet its requirement for a 313-
ship fleet until such time that modifications to the Navy's
ship fleet force structure are warranted, and the Secretary of
the Navy provides Congress with a justification of any proposed
modifications, supported by rigorous and sufficient warfighting
analysis.'' The Chiefs of Naval Operations since 2006 have
consistently stated that they need a fleet of 313 ships to do
their jobs. Nevertheless, the Navy has not achieved this number
of ships in the fleet since falling below that level in the
1990s.
In testimony before the congressional defense committees
and other public remarks, senior Navy leaders, including the
Secretary of the Navy, the Under Secretary of the Navy, and the
Chief of Naval Operations, have noted that the Navy is
conducting a new review of Navy force structure review. Navy
officials say that they have not completed the review, but that
it will probably reduce the goal for fleet size to
approximately 300 ships.
The committee is concerned that the Navy or the Department
of Defense (DOD) may propose reductions in the Navy's ship
fleet force structure without sufficient justification. The
committee reminds the Navy and DOD that the statement of the
sense of Congress remains in effect, and that the committee
expects that any proposed change in goal for the size of the
Navy's fleet will be accompanied by rigorous and sufficient
analysis that is convincing.
The committee doubts that neither a strategy shifting DOD's
focus to the Pacific and Asia, nor the demands of current
operational requirements, nor increased investment by potential
adversaries in naval forces and anti-access and area-denial
capabilities warrant a reduction in the required Navy fleet
size.
Termination of a Maritime Prepositioning Ship squadron (sec. 1022)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit
funding to terminate a Maritime Prepositioning Ship Squadron
until a report is received on the impact of the termination.
Sense of Congress on recapitalization for the Navy and Coast Guard
(sec. 1023)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that:
(1) the sea services of the United States should be
funded and maintained to provide the broad spectrum of
capabilities required to protect the national security
of the United States;
(2) such capabilities should include:
(a) the ability to project United States
power rapidly anywhere on the globe without the
need for host nation basing permission or long
and potentially vulnerable logistics supply
lines;
(b) the ability to land and recover maritime
forces from the sea for direct combat action,
to evacuate United States citizens from hostile
situations, and to provide humanitarian
assistance where needed;
(c) the ability to operate from the
subsurface with overpowering conventional
combat power, as well as strategic deterrence;
and
(d) the ability to operate in collaboration
with United States maritime partners in the
common interest of preventing piracy at sea and
maintaining the commercial sea lanes available
for global commerce.
(3) the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with
the Secretary of the Navy, should maintain the
recapitalization plans for the Navy as a priority in
all future force structure decisions; and
(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security should
maintain the recapitalization plans for the Coast Guard
as a priority in all future force structure decisions.
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism
Extension of certain prohibitions and requirements relating to
detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
(sec. 1031)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
fiscal year 2013 two restrictions relating to detainees at the
military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The provision would extend for 1 year the restriction in
section 1026 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1566) on the use
of funds made available to the Department of Defense to build
any facility in the United States to house Guantanamo
detainees.
The provision would also extend for 1 year the
certification requirements for transfers of Guantanamo
detainees to foreign countries and other foreign entities.
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations
Enhancement of responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff regarding the National Military Strategy (sec. 1041)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 153 of title 10, United States Code, to consolidate and
clarify the requirements for the submission or update, if any,
of the National Military Strategy, and the annual submission of
the Chairman's Risk Assessment. The amendment would also
clarify the requirement for a Secretary of Defense's Risk
Mitigation Plan to accompany the risk assessment if the
Chairman identifies significant risk in accomplishing the
objectives of the National Military Strategy.
Modification of authority on training of special operations forces with
friendly foreign forces (sec. 1042)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 2011 of title 10, United States Code, to state that the
purposes of the Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET)
authority are to support the training of U.S. Special
Operations Forces and the armed forces and other security
forces of a friendly foreign country. Consistent with current
practice, the recommended modification would also require the
Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the Secretary of State
prior to the initiation of any such training. Lastly, the
recommended modification would authorize unspecified minor
military construction projects, up to $250,000, that are in
direct support of authorized training.
The committee notes that the JCET authority is an effective
tool for improving the language and cultural expertise of U.S.
Special Operations Forces while providing opportunities to
practice skills needed to conduct a variety of missions,
including foreign internal defense, unconventional warfare, and
counterterrorism. The committee also recognizes the inherent
benefit of JCET events in building the capacity of foreign
partners. The committee notes that the JCET authority allows
flexibility for U.S. Special Operations Forces to engage with
appropriate partner nation armed forces and other security
forces, including those that conduct border and maritime
security, internal defense and security, and counterterrorism
operations.
The committee believes the recommended modifications to the
JCET authority more accurately reflect the current use of JCETs
as a training and engagement tool for geographic combatant
commanders and country teams. The committee notes that over the
past decade the Department of Defense has used the JCET
authority to support the development of national militaries and
other security forces in key regions. In countries of
particular concern, the Department has sought to be more
persistently engaged with partners. The committee believes such
persistent engagements support our broader counterterrorism
interests, ensure U.S. access and placement in key regions, and
enable foreign militaries to better support ongoing
multilateral operations. The recommended modifications are
intended to increase the flexibility of the JCET authority to
facilitate more persistent and enduring engagement with partner
nation security forces while continuing to provide a benefit,
but not necessarily the primary benefit, to U.S. Special
Operations Forces.
Extension of authority to provide assured business guarantees to
carriers participating in Civil Reserve Air Fleet (sec. 1043)
Section 9515 of title 10, United States Code, provides
authority for the Secretary of Defense to guarantee higher
minimum levels of business than would otherwise be authorized
by law to United States passenger carrying air carriers
participating in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. This authority
will expire on December 31, 2015.
The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) extend
the sunset date to 2020; and (2) permit the Secretary to expand
the possible uses of these assured business guarantees to cargo
carrying air carriers.
Participation of veterans in the Transition Assistance Program of the
Department of Defense (sec. 1044)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
veterans to participate in the Transition Assistance Program of
the Department of Defense for 1 year following discharge or
separation from the armed forces.
Modification of the Ministry of Defense Advisors Program (sec. 1045)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
Ministry of Defense Advisors Program, established in section
1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012 (Public Law 112-81), to permit the Secretary of Defense to
assign civilian employees of the Department of Defense as
advisors to regional organizations with defense or security
components and international organizations of which the United
States is a member.
The committee believes that regional security and
international security organizations play an important role in
ensuring stability and security in a number of key regions
around the globe. The committee further believes providing the
Secretary with the authority to assign individuals to these
organizations is in U.S. national security interests and will
assist the Secretary in influencing decisions and outcomes in
various regional and international security organizations.
Interagency collaboration on unmanned aircraft systems (sec. 1046)
The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) amend
section 1036(a) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to
encourage technical collaboration and sharing of personnel,
resources, and information among the Department of Defense
(DOD), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); (2)
direct the Secretary of Defense to collaborate with the FAA and
NASA Administrators on solutions to the challenges of unmanned
aerial system (UAS) integration into the National Airspace
System (NAS); and (3) require the Secretary of Defense to
provide an annual report for a period of 5 years on the
progress of research and development for UAS NAS integration
and future funding requirements.
UASs have clearly demonstrated their immense value to DOD
military capabilities in the global war on terrorism.
Increasingly, UASs are contributing to missions of other
agencies and departments within the United States. Large
numbers of UASs now deployed overseas may be returned to the
United States as the conflict in Afghanistan and operations
elsewhere wind down in coming years, and new UASs are under
development. Without the ability to operate freely and
routinely in the NAS, UAS development and training--and
ultimately operational capabilities--will be severely impacted.
As the committee has noted repeatedly in previous years,
DOD's leadership belatedly realized how important and difficult
UAS NAS integration would be. While progress has been made in
the last 5 years, the pace of development must be accelerated;
greater cross-agency collaboration and resource sharing will
contribute to that objective.
DOD has invested significantly in resolving the technical
challenges of UAS NAS integration, and this research and
development and associated resources should be utilized for the
benefit of this government-wide initiative, where applicable.
The committee is encouraged by the relationship built between
DOD, the FAA, and NASA for coordinating research and
development and planning for this integration. The committee
also recognizes the contribution that the Joint Planning and
Development Office's (JDPO) report, ``NextGen Unmanned Aircraft
Systems Research, Development and Demonstration Roadmap,''
dated March 15, 2012, has made by providing a multi-agency
perspective on the technology required to enable UAS operations
and integration in the next-generation NAS. The committee
supports and encourages a deeper collaborative relationship
between DOD and its JPDO partners to expedite development of
the necessary technologies and to avoid redundant activities.
Sense of Senate on notice to Congress on unfunded priorities (sec.
1047)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the service chiefs and the Commander
of U.S. Special Operations Command should provide to Congress,
through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
Secretary of Defense, a list of unfunded priorities, if any,
within 45 days of the submission of their annual budget
request.
Subtitle F--Reports
Report on strategic airlift aircraft (sec. 1061)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report that sets forth various assessments related
to: (1) possible Federal Aviation Administration certification
for commercial use of a commercial variant of the C-17
aircraft, a retired C-17A aircraft, and a retired C-5A
aircraft; and (2) the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) and the
potential for using these aircraft to augment capability in
participating CRAF air carriers. The Secretary would be
required to submit that report not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
Repeal of biennial report on the Global Positioning System (sec. 1062)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal a
biennial report on global positioning systems prepared by the
Department of Defense. This information can readily be obtained
from the biennial Federal Radionavigation Plan saving
approximately $150,000 each year in federal funds.
Repeal of annual report on threat posed by weapons of mass destruction,
ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles (sec. 1063)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal an
annual report that costs more than $1,000,000 annually to
produce and such information can be obtained through normal
requests to the intelligence agencies.
Subtitle G--Nuclear Matters
Strategic delivery system (sec. 1071)
The committee recommends a provision that requires the
President to certify to the congressional defense committees
whether plans to modernize strategic delivery systems are
funded at a level equal to or more than that outlined in the
November 2010 update to the plan found in section 1251 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-84). If the level of funding is less than that found in
the November 2010 update, then the President must submit as
part of the reporting requirements under section 1043 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81), whether a lack of full funding will result in a
loss of military capability.
If the President determines that the lack of full funding
will result in a loss of military capability, he must submit
with the section 1043 report a plan to preserve or retain the
capability that would be lost, and a report that assesses the
impact of the lack of full funding and a description of the
funding required to restore or maintain the capability. In
addition, a lack of full funding will require the President in
the section 1043 report to certify adherence to declaration 12
of the New START Treaty concerning nuclear modernization.
Requirements definition for combined warhead for certain missile
systems (sec. 1072)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Nuclear Weapons Council to define to Congress what a combined
warhead is so that the 6.1 and 6.2 process will have clarity in
the out-years.
The committee has found that contrary to statements made by
the administration during 2010 hearings for the New START
Treaty regarding a combined W88/W78 warhead as a way to save
maintenance costs, that, the concept remains ill defined at the
present time. Recent discussions have focused on two warhead
systems (the W88 and W78) that now have interchangeable
components.
Congressional Budget Office estimate of costs of nuclear weapons and
delivery systems (sec. 1073)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Congressional Budget Office to obtain a 10 year cost estimate
of nuclear weapons enterprise in the Departments of Defense and
Energy.
Subtitle H--Other Matters
Redesignation of Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies as the William
J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (sec. 1081)
The committee recommends a provision that would, as
requested by the Department of Defense, redesignate the Center
for Hemispheric Defense Studies as the William J. Perry Center
for Hemispheric Defense Studies.
Technical amendments to repeal statutory references to United States
Joint Forces Command (sec. 1082)
The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the
Department of Defense, that would amend title 10, United States
Code, to remove references to the United States Joint Forces
Command (USJFCOM) in order to reflect the disestablishment of
USJFCOM effective August 4, 2011.
Sense of Congress on non-United States citizens who are graduates of
United States educational institutions with advanced degrees in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (sec. 1083)
The committee recommends a provision that would express a
sense of Congress that would strongly urge the Department of
Defense to investigate innovative mechanisms to access the pool
of talent of non-United States citizens with advanced
scientific and technical degrees from United States
institutions of higher learning.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) contains a provision directing the
Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of current and
potential mechanisms to permit the Department of Defense to
employ non-United States citizens with critical scientific and
technical skills that are vital to the national security
interests of the United States. The committee is awaiting this
report, due by the end of calendar year 2012.
In testimony before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats
and Capabilities of the Senate Committee on Armed Services on
April 17, 2012, Department of Defense science and technology
executives expressed concern over the possible unintended
consequences of taking significant action on this front. The
committee understands the trepidation expressed by the service
executives, but feels strongly that the most substantial
unintended consequence of lack of action will be the
significant loss of technical talent to the country.
Items of Special Interest
Arctic region
The committee recognizes the continued importance of the
Arctic region to our broader national strategy. Declining ice
cover continues to open the Arctic region and a concerted,
systematic, and immediate effort should be undertaken to
adequately protect the United States' security, environmental,
energy, economic, and natural resource interests in the Arctic.
The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) and,
in particular, U.S. Northern Command and the Department of the
Navy, and other federal agencies, such as the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), through the U.S. Coast Guard, the
Department of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Arctic Research
Commission, for their progress thus far in studying the region
and defining the capabilities required to effectively operate
in and protect the domain.
International and interagency collaboration is also needed
to develop the necessary mapping and charting resources
required for safe navigation and to promote security and
economic interests. As sea ice recedes, timely weather
forecasts and disaster warnings along with more baseline data
will be required to conduct successful search and rescue
missions. Search and rescue coordination, planning, and
training for the Artic should be thoroughly analyzed and
developed to ensure forces can successfully operate in the
domain.
The committee recognizes the importance of DOD's
involvement in interagency and international efforts to protect
national security interests in the region and, accordingly,
urges DOD to continue to work in concert with DHS to establish
a formal chartered working group to pursue increasing Arctic
capabilities in the areas of communications, maritime domain
awareness, infrastructure, and presence, as was recommended by
U.S. Northern Command and the U.S. Coast Guard in a joint White
Paper dated March 13, 2012. The committee also urges the
agencies to develop an investment strategy for funding emerging
requirements in balance with a resource constrained
environment.
B-52 Combat Network Communications Study
The B-52 Combat Network Communications (CONECT) program has
been executing on cost and schedule and has successfully
completed all Milestone C criteria. The Senate has concerns
with the Air Force's decision to restructure the CONECT program
to only replace the current Multi-Function Displays located at
each of the crew stations, making the temporary Evolutionary
Data Link modification permanent, and demoding the CONECT test
aircraft. The committee understands that after the budget was
released the Commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command
asked that the decision to restructure CONECT be reconsidered.
The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to do
so and to provide the congressional defense committees with a
report assessing the available B-52 modernization options no
later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act.
B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement
The committee recognizes that the analysis of alternatives
for the current B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement (SR2) program
certified that replacement of the 30 year APQ-166 is the best
option. The APQ-166 Radar is increasingly expensive to
maintain. The Air Force justification for the cancellation of
the SR2 program in the fiscal year 2012 budget request is noted
as funding being needed for higher priorities. However, the
recent B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement Analysis of
Alternatives (AoA) Final Report stated cost-effectiveness
issues with the Air Force proposal. Maintaining the current
radar system is more expensive than replacing it with a modern,
in production, radar system as determined by the Air Force's
Analysis of Alternatives. Therefore, the committee recommends
pursuing the most cost-effective solution presented in the AOA.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a plan to continue the effort
in replacing the aging radar on B-52 aircraft.
Clarification of scope of requirements for periodic detention review of
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba
Section 1023 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) requires the Secretary of
Defense to issue procedures implementing the periodic review
process required by Executive Order 13567 for individuals
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The Department of Defense has requested legislation clarifying
congressional intent that this provision does not require
periodic review boards for Guantanamo detainees who have
already been designated for transfer or conditional detention,
or who have charges pending or a judgment of conviction.
The committee concludes that such legislation is not
needed. Section 1023(b)(3) requires the Executive branch to
apply the periodic review process of Executive Order 13567 to
any detainee who may be brought to Guantanamo Bay in the
future, but does not change the scope of Executive Order 13567
as to which detainees at Guantanamo Bay as of the date of
enactment of the provision are required to be provided periodic
review boards in accordance with that process. The committee
understands that under section 3 of the Executive Order, a
periodic review board must be provided to any current
Guantanamo detainee who has been: (1) designated for continued
law of war detention; or (2) referred for prosecution (except
for those detainees against whom charges are pending or a
judgment of conviction has been entered). Section 1023(b)(3)
does not change these requirements.
Combat Network Communications Technology
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2013 for the
Combat Network Communications Technology was significantly
restructured, delaying the production and deployment from
fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2015. The committee is fully
supportive of this important communications backbone to the B-
52 modernization program noting that it should be moved forward
if possible to having production and deployment to fiscal year
2014.
Funds transfers between Department of Defense accounts
The committee notes that the President's budget request
annually includes legislative provisions to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to transfer up to certain amounts of funds
authorized each year for each account to unforeseen higher
priorities. Because the legislation results in the transfers to
be deemed as additional authorizations outside the normal
congressional authorization process, certain restrictions are
imposed on its use by both Congress and the Department of
Defense through policy guidance to ensure the transfers are
carried out consistent with congressional intent. The
Department is expressly prohibited from preparing or forwarding
to Congress a prior approval reprogramming action except for
higher priority items, based on unforeseen military
requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and
is determined to be necessary in the national interest.
Despite these restrictions, the committee is concerned
about the total amounts transferred among programs, much of
which is not required to be counted against the General and
Special Transfer Authorities granted by Congress each year. The
Department is permitted to transfer funds between military
personnel accounts, and has additional special transfer
authorities for foreign currency fluctuations, intelligence
programs, and certain operations and maintenance accounts. As a
result, in fiscal year 2011 alone, the Department transferred
nearly $27.0 billion among accounts, but only $11.1 billion or
40 percent of these transfers were approved through the
congressional reprogramming process prior to transfer. In
addition, the total transfer authority contained in the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year
2011 (Public Law 111-383) only totaled $8.0 billion, and the
Department of Defense has used only $4.1 billion to date.
The committee notes that the Department currently is
authorized to transfer funding between accounts up to certain
threshold amounts that do not require prior approval from
Congress nor do they require the use of special transfer
authorities. These below threshold reprogramming (BTR) amounts
are limited to $10.0 million for each military personnel
account, $15.0 million for operation and maintenance; $20.0
million for procurement; and $10.0 million for research,
development, test, and evaluation. During Fiscal Year 2011, the
Department of Defense transferred over $7.0 billion, in 1,629
budget lines using BTR authority and another $9.7 billion using
other internal reprogramming authorities. All these transfers
were approved by officials in the military services or defense
agencies without any congressional review or oversight.
In addition, in fiscal year 2011 the Department of Defense
requested approval to transfer funds totaling over $1.0 billion
in order to start new procurement and research, development,
test and evaluation programs that were not previously
authorized by Congress, even though the Department of Defense
Financial Management Regulation entitled ``Reprogramming of
Appropriated Funds'' states in regard to the new starts that
``Congressional committees discourage the use of the
reprogramming process to initiate programs.'' The committee is
aware that urgent operational requirements, particularly those
supporting on-going contingency operations, may result in the
need to initiate a new program without prior congressional
authorization or outside the traditional budget cycle.
Therefore, the committee continues to discourage the use of
transfer authority to initiate programs unless the requirement
satisfies a validated emerging or urgent operational warfighter
need, is the result of extraordinary situations, and for which
the follow-on funding is budgeted.
The committee grants a certain degree of flexibility to the
Department of Defense in order to manage federal taxpayer funds
efficiently and effectively in response to changing conditions
and emerging requirements. On the other hand, this same
flexibility facilitates a certain degree of budget
gamesmanship, as certain accounts, such as operations and
maintenance and base operations support that are intended to
satisfy ``must-pay'' bills, are historically underfunded in the
President's annual budget requests with the understanding that
the Department will be able to transfer funds between accounts.
This type of budget gamesmanship is a major reason why the
Department is not able to produce annual financial statements
that are auditable. It also facilitates the annual exercise of
a rush to transfer funds at the end of the fiscal year to
accounts for which contracts or task orders can be obligated
quickly.
The committee is concerned that, despite the efforts of the
Department to rein in wasteful and unneeded spending, these
internal reprogramming processes and year-end rushes do not
allow for an objective assessment of the priority or urgency of
the funding need. Instead, they encourage action to obligate
all authorized funds before they expire or are returned to the
General Treasury. The committee believes that in order for the
Department to truly ensure efficient spending at every level of
resource management, new standards of performance must be
established for each resource manager that rewards the result
of acquiring goods and services to meet validated requirements
established for the fiscal year within amounts authorized for
that account and then returning any unobligated balances back
to the General Treasury in order to buy down the federal debt,
as opposed to looking for other goods or services to purchase.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees within
90 days after enactment of this Act providing suggestions to
increase the transparency and accountability of funds transfers
that do not require the prior approval of Congress. The report
should also include a description of policies, procedures, or
guidance provided to each program manager in the Department to
determine the urgency or priority of an unfunded requirement,
and to establish a culture of fiscal frugality and efficiency
that promotes the return of unobligated balances back to
financial managers for the purchase of higher priority goods
and services or a return of funds to the General Treasury.
Government Accountability Office report on duplication, overlap and
fragmentation in federal programs
On February 28, 2012, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) issued a report entitled, ``Opportunities to Reduce
Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and
Enhance Revenue,'' that identified 32 areas of duplication,
overlap and fragmentation throughout the Federal Government,
and 19 areas of potential cost-saving and revenue-enhancement
opportunities in federal programs, agencies, offices and
initiatives. This report identified 16 areas of duplication,
overlap, or potential savings that relate to the programs and
operations of the Department of Defense (DOD).
In the current environment of fiscal austerity and
constrained resources, DOD must take advantage of every
opportunity to identify efficiencies and achieve savings in its
programs and activities. For this reason, careful consideration
of the areas of potential savings identified by the GAO
report--such as electronic warfare, unmanned aircraft systems,
counter-improvised explosive device efforts, defense language
and culture training, stabilization and reconstruction
operations, Air Force food service, defense headquarters,
defense real property, military healthcare costs, and overseas
defense posture--is imperative.
The committee concludes that DOD should assess each area of
duplication, overlap, or potential savings identified by GAO
that relates to DOD programs and operations and, to the extent
that it has not already done so, take appropriate steps to
address any such areas for which DOD agrees with the GAO
recommendations. For any areas as to which DOD concludes that
the duplication, overlap, or potential savings identified by
GAO are not valid, the committee directs the Secretary to
provide the congressional defense committees with an
explanation of the basis for this conclusion.
Government Accountability Office review of the Nuclear Command,
Control, and Communications System
The U.S. nuclear command, control, and communications
system (NC3) includes the activities, processes, and procedures
performed by appropriate military commanders and support
personnel to allow for senior-level decisions on nuclear
weapons employment. The committee commends the Department of
Defense (DOD) for directing a number of initiatives to improve
the reliability of the NC3 system. However, the committee is
concerned that the Department's efforts are being pursued in a
piecemeal fashion rather than part of a coherent system
architecture and investment strategy with consistent
leadership. For example, a key Air Force modernization program
that has been in development for a decade, the Family of
Advanced Beyond Line-of-Sight Terminals (FAB-T) program, which
is the base terminal for the Advanced Extremely High Frequency
Satellite, has veered off track and it may take years longer
than expected before any of the needed capability becomes part
of the NC3 system, especially in the B-2 and B-52H fleet. This
means that our strategic bombers, which can carry nuclear
weapons, will not be able to use the very satellites designed
for nuclear command and control.
The committee directs that the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to assess DOD's efforts to sustain and improve the
NC3 system. Specifically, the committee directs GAO to examine:
(1) the DOD's efforts and activities underway or planned to
upgrade and modernize the Nation's nuclear NC3 capabilities,
including activities associated with cryptographic
modernization; (2) the extent to which DOD's modernization and
upgrade efforts are being coordinated as part of an overarching
NC3 architecture and investment strategy; (3) whether there are
NC3 gaps, shortcomings, technical challenges, or funding issues
that need to be addressed currently; (4) the factors that
caused the FAB-T program to go off track and the Air Force's
plans to salvage the program, including how land and air
platform integration challenges will be addressed; and (5)
extent to which DOD has identified and addressed gaps or
shortcomings in the NC3 system through its inspections,
training, and exercise programs.
Hazard assessments related to new construction of obstructions on
military installations and operations
Section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383)
required the Secretary of Defense to establish a systematic
process and a comprehensive strategy for assessing and
addressing military impacts of renewable energy projects and
other energy projects with the objective of ensuring that the
robust development of renewable energy sources and the
expansion of the commercial electrical grid in the United
States are conducted in a manner that minimize or mitigate any
adverse impacts on military operations and readiness.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has implemented the
requirement of section 358 by establishing a Siting
Clearinghouse to serve as a focal point for DOD consideration
of proposed energy projects. The Clearinghouse has developed a
consistent process for review of such projects, including
evaluation criteria, operational impact assessment tools, and
mitigation response teams. This process has enabled the
Department to focus its attention on those projects that are
likely to have adverse impacts on military missions and to
conduct additional analysis needed to determine if mitigation
is possible.
The Clearinghouse has reviewed 249 renewable energy
projects to date that were under consideration at the time
section 358 was enacted, and has determined that 229 of them
would have little or no impact to military missions. The
remaining 20 have been assessed as potentially having an
adverse impact on military test, readiness, and operational
missions. While further study and negotiations with project
developers are underway in consultation with appropriate
federal agencies, no determination of an unacceptable risk to
national security has yet been made with regard to any of these
projects.
The committee expects that any DOD hazard assessment under
subsection (e) of section 358 will include an analysis of the
electromagnetic interference that the proposed project would
cause for the relevant military installation (including
interference with military-owned or military-operated air
traffic control radar sites, navigation aids, and approach
systems), as well as any other adverse impacts on military
operations, safety, and readiness (including adverse effects on
instrument or visual flight operations). In the event that a
potential risk is identified, the hazard assessment should
consider the feasibility of the full range of mitigation
measures. Such mitigation measures could include modifications
to the proposed project (including changes in size, location,
or technology), upgrades or modifications to existing DOD
systems or procedures, acquisition and fielding of new systems
by DOD or other federal agencies, and modifications to military
operations.
The committee also expects the Secretary of Defense to give
careful consideration to the recommendations of senior military
officers with primary responsibility for the affected military
installation and affected military operations in making any
final determination of unacceptable risk.
The committee concludes that section 358 requires a set of
established criteria in order to ensure the risk assessments
are objective, rational, and justifiable. The committee also
notes that final routes and sites may change after a
determination is made, due to ongoing environmental studies,
changes in developer plans, and the assessment of alternatives
as part of mitigation efforts. In such cases, the Clearinghouse
should have processes in place to reopen the review, continue
the analysis, and amend the determination if the review results
in a change in the determination.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide
to the congressional defense committees by December 1, 2012, a
description of the processes and criteria used to make the
determination whether or not an energy project poses an
unacceptable risk to national security.
Impacts of ``Sequestration'' on the Department of Defense
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
subject to automatic funding reductions known as
``sequestration'' of $492.0 billion between 2013 and 2021 as
required by section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a). These reductions
are in addition to reductions of $487.0 billion already being
implemented by the Department of Defense.
The leaders of the Department of Defense have consistently
testified that automatic reductions would have a detrimental
impact on the Department's ability to maintain readiness.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that these reductions
would ``inflict severe damage to our national defense for
generations'' and Chief Staff of the Army, General Raymond
Odierno, warned that the cuts would force the Army to separate
an additional 100,000 soldiers. Sequestration will also have a
detrimental effect on the industrial base that supports the
Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee directs that the Secretary of
Defense submit to the congressional defense committees no later
than August 15, 2012 a detailed report on the impact of the
sequestration of funds authorized and appropriated for fiscal
year 2013 for the Department of Defense. The report should
include an assessment of the potential impact of sequestration
on the readiness of the Armed Forces, on the ability of the
Department to carry out the National Military Strategy, and any
changes to the most recent Chairman's Risk Assessment.
The committee is also aware that automatically triggered
cuts would disrupt programs, projects, and activities across
the military departments and components, potentially causing
the termination or restructuring of hundreds of contracts.
Therefore, the report should include an estimate of the number
and value of all contracts that will be terminated or re-scoped
due to sequestration, including an estimate of the resulting
costs. Finally, the report should include an estimate of the
number of civilian, contract, and uniformed personnel whose
employment would be terminated due to sequestration.
The committee urges the administration and Congress to work
together, beginning immediately, to develop and introduce in
both Houses of Congress not later than September 15, 2012, a
proposal to replace the automatically triggered, across-the-
board reductions in fiscal year 2013 funding required by
sequestration, in order to avoid the devastating consequences
of continued inaction.
Resiliency and survivability for nuclear air-launched cruise and
missile basing
As the United States reduces its deployed nuclear forces in
the coming years to comply with limits established in the New
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the resiliency and
survivability of the Nation's enduring strategic nuclear
deterrent assumes a new level of importance. Since the
decertification of one Air Force Weapons Storage Area (WSA) in
2007, the Air Force has relied upon a single WSA to meet U.S.
Strategic Command's nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missile
requirement. The committee notes that following serious Air
Force security incidents in 2006 and 2007, the September 2008
Phase 1 Report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force on DOD
[Department of Defense] Nuclear Weapons Management concluded
that, ``The closure of the WSA at one of the bomber bases was a
significant mistake with a negative operational impact,'' and
that ``[the closure] simplifies enemy targeting and creates
more concentration of vulnerability for the B-52 bomber
force.'' In response, the Air Force requested and Congress
appropriated $73.0 million for activities to recertify and
reopen the closed WSA.
However, in testimony before the committee in February
2011, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton A. Schwartz
stated that the Air Force had decided not to pursue these
activities because of budget constraints. A reconstituted
second WSA could enhance the resiliency of the bomber force,
provide redundancy in a critical national security mission, and
reduce operational risk. Consolidation of the old WSA's
existing security perimeter and installation of modern
detection and denial systems could reduce security personnel
requirements and result in significant cost savings from
original estimates. Accordingly, the committee encourages the
Secretary of the Air Force to reexamine plans, including
requirements and costs, for reconstituting a second nuclear
weapons storage capability for nuclear-armed air-launched
cruise missiles.
Roles of the Air Force Global Strike Command and Air Combat Command
The Air Force Global Strike Command is a major command
created in 2007 when the Air Force's ability to manage its
portion of the nuclear weapons enterprise came into question.
That Command's mission is to ``Develop and provide combat-ready
forces for nuclear deterrence and global strike operations that
are safe, secure and effective to support the President of the
United States and combatant commanders''. The Command utilizes
the fleet of B-2 and B-52 long-range heavy bombers in carrying
out its mission. Air Combat Command also exercises some
responsibilities for managing the B-2 and B-52 bomber fleets.
It is not clear to the committee how the Air Force has
apportioned responsibility for exercising authority, direction
and control in regards to tasking and funding for the B-2 and
B-52 training and operations between the Global Strike Command
and the Air Combat Command.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
provide a report describing how these functions are apportioned
between the Global Strike Command and Air Combat Command no
later than January 31, 2013.
Safety and security standards for Department of Defense hazardous
materials transport
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
is responsible for the transportation of nearly 70,000 separate
shipments of security sensitive material every year. Trucks
carrying these shipments travel tens of millions of miles on
highways across all 50 States.
The Defense Transportation Regulation establishes standards
for the safe movement of hazardous materials. The committee
understands that an industry group has proposed that DOD adopt
enhanced safety standards for hazardous materials. The
committee does not prejudge the adequacy of existing safety
standards, but believes that it is essential that DOD ensure
that transportation safety standards are commensurate with
safety risk posed by the categories of cargo that are
transported.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct an impartial analysis of its existing standards for
the transportation of hazardous materials and submit that
analysis to the congressional defense committees not later than
45 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The
Secretary's analysis should address past safety performance,
number of transportation accidents and causes, accident rates,
and standards used by DOD, the Department of Transportation,
and other organizations and companies that transport similar
hazardous cargo.
The committee further directs the Department to implement
such changes to existing regulations and standards (if any) as
he determines to be needed on the basis of the review.
Use of general purpose forces and special operations forces for
security force assistance
The committee notes that the guidance documents issued by
the President and Department of Defense (DOD) have emphasized
international security force assistance as an element of our
broad security strategy captured in the National Security
Strategy, Quadrennial Defense Review, National Strategy for
Counterterrorism, and the recent Defense Strategic Guidance.
Historically, special operations forces have conducted the
majority of the DOD's activities to train, equip, advise, and
assist international security forces. However, the fundamental
role of building partner nation capability and capacities and
the limited availability of special operations forces (SOF) for
this mission have required DOD to build the capabilities and
capacities of its general purpose forces (GPF) to conduct
security force assistance.
The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)
has projected that the current high demand for SOF will
continue and that a ``steady state'' of approximately 12,000
deployed SOF will be required to meet the future requirements
of the geographic combatant commanders for security force
assistance, counterterrorism, civil affairs, military
information support, and other missions. At the same time, DOD
and the military services are also taking steps to identify
capability requirements, implementing new approaches to
organizing units--including aligning certain GPF to specific
regions, and adjusting training to enhance the ability of GPF
to conduct security force assistance activities.
The committee is aware of the Comptroller General's
previous work on challenges DOD faces in defining its concept
for security force assistance and guiding combatant commander
and service efforts to plan and conduct related activities, as
well as its work on challenges USSOCOM has faced in providing
sufficient numbers of trained personnel to meet the demand for
increased deployments.
Given that high demand for SOF is projected to continue for
the foreseeable future, as well as DOD's efforts to expand the
capabilities of the GPF to perform security force assistance,
the committee is concerned that the Department risks creating
redundancies, investing funds, and utilizing personnel in
creating duplicative capabilities when resources are
increasingly limited and the size of the GPF is decreasing.
In order to better understand the Department's plan for the
security force assistance mission within both GPF and SOF, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees on
its evaluation of DOD efforts in these areas, including the
extent that DOD has delineated the roles and responsibilities
of SOF and GPF; distinguished between the types of
circumstances where the respective forces would be used to
conduct security force assistance activities; and whether DOD
has identified and prioritized the respective requirements and
resource needs for building and sustaining the capabilities of
both types of forces, and other matters the Comptroller General
sees fit to include.
Vacancies in critical Inspector General positions
The committee notes with concern that a number of critical
Inspector General positions in the Federal Government have been
vacant for an extended period of time. The position of
Department of Defense Inspector General has been vacant since
the beginning of the year, without a successor being nominated.
In the view of the committee, continuing vacancies among the
Inspectors General undermines needed oversight of critical
national security functions and operations. While Acting
Inspectors General often do an admirable job, they are unlikely
to have the clout and influence of Senate-confirmed officials.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to work with the
President to identify and submit a highly-qualified nominee to
be the Department of Defense Inspector General as soon as
possible.
Working partnerships with State and local law enforcement authorities
The committee is aware of significant jurisdictional gaps
and overlaps between Department of Defense (DOD) law
enforcement authorities on military installations and civilian
law enforcement authorities in areas surrounding military
installations. For example, the Department has expressed
concern about its lack of jurisdiction over a growing
population of non-DOD affiliated civilians living in privatized
housing on DOD installations. Similar issues can arise in the
case of DOD-leased facilities off of DOD installations.
The committee also recognizes that information collection
and sharing among law enforcement agencies is a critical
element of effective force protection for military
installations inside the United States. For this reason, the
committee encourages active participation by both DOD law
enforcement authorities and local law enforcement authorities
in areas surrounding military installations in ongoing
information-sharing programs managed and operated by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland
Security.
The committee concludes that DOD law enforcement
authorities should actively work to develop working
partnerships with law enforcement agencies in areas surrounding
military installations, and to use such partnerships to address
a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including force
protection issues. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to report to the congressional defense committees not
later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act on steps
that the Department has taken or plans to take to promote such
partnerships.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
Authority for transportation of family household pets of civilian
personnel during evacuation of non-essential personnel (sec.
1101)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 5725 of title 5, United States Code, to authorize the
transport at government expense of family household pets of
government employees during evacuations from permanent stations
in foreign locations.
Expansion of experimental personnel program for scientific and
technical personnel at the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (sec. 1102)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1101(b)(1)(A) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) to
authorize the appointment of not more than 60 employees to
scientific and engineering positions in the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The provision would not be
construed as affecting any limitation on the numbers of
personnel that may be employed at DARPA overall.
One-year extension of discretionary authority to grant allowances,
benefits, and gratuities to personnel on official duty in a
combat zone (sec. 1103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
temporary discretionary authority to federal agencies to grant
allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to those
provided to members of the foreign service to an agency's
civilian employees on official duty in a combat zone. This
authority would expire at the end of fiscal year 2014.
Item of Special Interest
Department of Defense strategic workforce plan
Section 115b of title 10, United States Code, requires the
Secretary of Defense to prepare a strategic workforce plan to
shape and improve the civilian employee workforce of the
Department of Defense (DOD) on a biannual basis. The strategic
workforce plan is required to include an assessment of the
critical skills and competencies that will be needed to support
national security requirements and effectively manage the
Department and the appropriate mix of military, civilian, and
contractor personnel capabilities needed to ensure the
availability of such skills and capabilities.
The most recent strategic workforce plan, submitted to the
committee in March 2012, includes a comprehensive assessment of
24 mission critical occupations and 4 cross-cutting mission
critical functions in the DOD civilian workforce. The plan
includes specific recruitment, retention, and development
strategies to address identified gaps in these occupations and
functions. While not yet fully compliant with the requirements
of section 115b, the March 2012 strategic workforce plan is a
significant improvement over earlier plans.
At the same time, the plan is a massive document that DOD
assesses is too big and complex to be a practical guide for
workforce management. Because of deficiencies in the DOD
inventory of contract services required by section 2330a of
title 10, United States Code, the plan does not yet include
meaningful data on the total workforce (including military,
civilian, and contractor employees) that can be used to assess
the appropriate workforce mix needed to perform critical
functions.
Moreover, the plan was submitted a year late and was based
on forecasts completed in December 2010--before the Secretary
announced efficiencies initiatives, including a freeze on the
civilian workforce at fiscal year 2010 levels. It is not clear
to what extent, if any, the military departments and defense
agencies took the strategic workforce plan, and the critical
capabilities and capabilities gaps identified in the plan, into
account as they worked to implement these efficiencies.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness to review the requirements for the
strategic workforce plan and the process used to develop and
implement the plan and to identify steps, including any
recommended legislative changes, that may be needed to
streamline the planning process, enhance the utility of the
plan, and ensure that it is implemented by the military
departments and defense agencies in an operationally effective
manner. The committee directs the Under Secretary to report the
findings and recommendations of this review to the
congressional defense committees by no later than 60 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training
Extension of authority to build the capacity of foreign military forces
and modification of notice in connection with initiation of
activities (sec. 1201)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through September 30, 2014, 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 conduct a program to build the capacity of foreign
military forces. The provision would also require the Secretary
of Defense to provide, as part of the 15-day prior notification
of the initiation of a project under this authority, additional
information on assistance provided during the 3 preceding
fiscal years to the country in which the project is to be
initiated. The committee believes the provision of this
additional information in the notification will facilitate
congressional oversight of the train and equip program.
Extension of authority for non-reciprocal exchange of defense personnel
between the United States and foreign countries (sec. 1202)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
5 fiscal years the authority for the Department of Defense
(DOD) to accept, on a non-reciprocal basis, defense personnel
of the defense ministry of an ally or friendly foreign
government.
The committee notes that DOD has used this authority
judiciously and only recently expanded its use to include
countries outside of our traditional partners. The committee
urges the Department to continue to use this authority and to
consider using it to enhance--consistent with the new Defense
Strategic Guidance--our partnerships in the Middle East and
Asia Pacific.
Authority to build the capacity of certain counterterrorism forces in
Yemen and East Africa (sec. 1203)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
for 2 fiscal years the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide training,
equipment, supplies, and minor military construction to: (1)
the Yemen Ministry of Interior (MOI) Counterterrorism Unit
(CTU); (2) the national military forces, counterterrorism
forces, security agencies that serve a similar defense
function, and border security forces of Djibouti, Ethiopia, and
Kenya; and (3) the national military forces of nations
participating in the African Union Mission in Somalia; for the
purpose of conducting counterterrorism operations against al
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, and al Qaeda
affiliates and al Shabaab in East Africa. The provision permits
the Secretary of Defense to expend not more than $75.0 million
in support of the Yemen MOI CTU, and not more than $75.0
million in support of the named forces conducting
counterterrorism operations in East Africa. The provision
requires that any support pursuant to this section must be
provided in a manner that promotes the observance of and
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and for
legitimate civilian authority in the country receiving such
assistance.
The committee notes that this authority is similar to
section 1207(n) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) and that the Department
requested an extension of that authority. The committee is
supportive of the Department's request and associated efforts
to better enable counterterrorism forces in East Africa and
Yemen, but views this authority as a means to continue
providing support to these forces until the Global Security
Contingency Fund and its associated processes are fully
operational. Further, the committee chose to create this
authority as a standalone authority to correct a number of
technical errors in section 1207(n) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
The committee believes these authorities will be critical
to supporting counterterrorism efforts by partner nations
against al Qaeda and al Shabaab in the coming 2 fiscal years as
they work to consolidate and build upon recent gains in Somalia
and prevent al Qaeda from establishing a safe haven in Yemen as
the political process in Yemen continues to unfold.
Limitation on availability of funds for State Partnership Program (sec.
1204)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense from obligating or expending more than
50 percent of the fiscal year 2013 funds for the State
Partnership Program until the final regulations required
pursuant to section 1210 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) are completed and
the necessary regulatory adjustments have been completed to
ensure compliance of the program with the Antideficiency Act
(Public Law 97-258).
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan
Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan (sec. 1211)
The committee recommends a provision that would make up to
$200.0 million in Department of Defense funds available during
fiscal year 2013 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 explained elsewhere in this report, this is $200.0 million
less than the $400.0 million requested in the budget request.
CERP enables commanders in Afghanistan to fund humanitarian
relief and reconstruction projects that directly benefit the
Afghan people.
Extension 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 for
1 year the authority of 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) for the Secretary of Defense to
support the operations and activities of the Office of Security
Cooperation in Iraq and security assistance teams, including
life support, transportation and personal security, and
construction and renovation of facilities. The provision would
limit the total amount of funds available for these purposes to
$508.0 million.
One-year extension and modification of authority to use funds for
reintegration activities in Afghanistan (sec. 1213)
The committee recommends a provision that extends for 1
year the authority in 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 a program for the reintegration of former
insurgent fighters into Afghan society. The provision would
authorize the use of up to $35.0 million for these purposes.
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 for
fiscal year 2013 the authority under section 1217 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383) for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Program
(AIP) to develop and carry out infrastructure programs in
Afghanistan that support the counterinsurgency campaign.
Funding for the AIP is provided through a fund in the U.S.
Treasury known as the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund. The
provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to use up to
$350.0 million in fiscal year 2013 for these purposes. The
provision would also restrict the availability of funds
authorized during fiscal year 2013 for the AIP to no more than
50 percent of the authorized amount until the Secretary of
Defense submits to Congress a plan for the allocation and use
of funds under the program, including information on how each
project to be initiated under the program would be sustained
following its completion.
The committee notes that a significant portion of the funds
available to the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund in fiscal
years 2011 and 2012 have supported efforts by the Department of
Defense and the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) to rebuild and improve the delivery of electricity to
Kandahar and southern Afghanistan. During fiscal year 2013,
over $100.0 million of funds authorized for this program will
support Kandahar electrification. The committee recognizes this
effort as a priority for the program. At the same time, the
committee continues to have concerns about the sustainability
of large-scale infrastructure projects initiated by the
Department of Defense under the AIP. The committee believes
that as the security, political, and economic transition
progresses in Afghanistan, responsibility within the U.S.
Government (USG) for any large-scale infrastructure projects in
Afghanistan should shift away from the Department of Defense to
USG civilian agencies, particularly the Department of State and
USAID.
Extension of Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (sec. 1215)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
fiscal year 2013 the authorities of section 1224 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2521), as amended, regarding the use of
the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) for building the
capabilities of the Pakistan security forces. The provision
would also extend for 1 year the provisions of section 1220 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1633) that restrict the
availability of PCF funding to no more than 40 percent of
amounts appropriated or transferred to the PCF during fiscal
year 2013 until the Secretary of Defense submits a report to
Congress on a strategy and metrics for use of the PCF and for
enhancing Pakistan's efforts to counter improvised explosive
devices.
The committee notes that this Act does not authorize any
additional funds for the PCF during fiscal year 2013.
Accordingly, any additional funds for the PCF during fiscal
year 2013 would have to be transferred to the PCF from amounts
appropriated to the Department of State's Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund (PCCF). The committee
further notes that section 7046(c)(1) of the Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations
Act, 2012, contained in Division I of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74) restricts the
availability of funds under the PCCF until the Secretary of
State makes certain certifications to Congress regarding
Pakistan, including that Pakistan is: (i) cooperating with the
United States in counterterrorism efforts against the Haqqani
Network, the Quetta Shura Taliban, Lashkar e-Tayyiba, Jaish-e-
Mohammed, al Qaeda, and other domestic and foreign terrorist
organizations, including taking steps to end support for such
groups and prevent them from basing and operating in Pakistan
and carrying out cross border attacks into neighboring
countries; (ii) not supporting terrorist activities against
United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, and that
Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies are not
intervening extra-judicially into political and judicial
processes in Pakistan; and (iii) dismantling improvised
explosive device (IED) networks and interdicting precursor
chemicals used in the manufacture of IEDs. The Secretary of
State may waive the certification requirement if doing so is in
U.S. national security interests. In the event that the
provisions of section 7046(c)(1) of Public Law 112-74 are not
extended for fiscal year 2013 with respect to the PCCF, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, to provide the certification
required by section 7046(c)(1)(A) of Public Law 112-74 prior to
using any PCF funds from amounts transferred to the PCF from
the PCCF during fiscal year 2013. The Secretary of Defense may
waive this requirement if the Secretary determines that doing
so is in the national security interests of the United States.
Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement of certain
coalition nations for support provided to United States
military operations (sec. 1216)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority of section 1233 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122
Stat. 393), as amended, for the use of Department of Defense
(DOD) funds (``Coalition Support Funds'') to reimburse key
nations for logistical and military support provided to or in
connection with Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), or to use
such funds to assist key nations by providing specialized
training, or loaning specialized equipment, in connection with
OEF. The provision would limit the aggregate amount of
Coalition Support Funds that could be provided during fiscal
year 2013 to $1.75 billion, except that reimbursements made to
Pakistan for support provided prior to May 1, 2011, using
Coalition Support Funds authorized and appropriated during a
fiscal year prior to fiscal year 2013, would not count against
that limitation.
The provision would also prohibit any reimbursements to
Pakistan for claims of support provided during the period when
the ground lines of supply through Pakistan to Afghanistan were
closed to the transshipment of equipment and supplies needed to
support U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.
The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense,
prior to providing any reimbursement to Pakistan using
Coalition Support Funds during fiscal year 2013, to certify to
the congressional defense committees that: Pakistan has opened
and is maintaining security along the ground lines of supply
through Pakistan to Afghanistan; Pakistan is not supporting or
providing safe haven to militant extremist groups, including
the Haqqani Network and the Afghan Taliban Quetta Shura, that
are located in Pakistan and that conduct cross-border attacks
against U.S., coalition, and Afghan forces; Pakistan is
committed to a strategy to counter improvised explosive devices
(IED), including through the regulation of explosive materials
used in IEDs; and that Pakistan is demonstrably cooperating
with U.S. counterterrorism efforts, including by not detaining,
prosecuting, or imprisoning Pakistani citizens as a result of
their cooperation with U.S. counterterrorism efforts. In this
regard, the Committee is particularly concerned and outraged by
the case of Dr. Shakil Afridi, who was sentenced to 33 years in
prison in connection with assistance he provided to U.S.
efforts to locate Osama Bin Laden. The Secretary may waive this
certification requirement if doing so would be in the national
security interests of the United States.
Extension and modification of logistical support for coalition forces
supporting certain United States military operations (sec.
1217)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
fiscal year 2013 the authority provided in section 1234 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 111-181; 122 Stat. 394), as most recently amended by
section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1629), to
provide logistical support to coalition forces. The provision
would also amend that section to clarify that for fiscal year
2013 logistical support is authorized for coalition forces
supporting operations in Afghanistan only, and not Afghanistan
and Iraq as in previous years.
Strategy for supporting the achievement of a secure presidential
election in Afghanistan in 2014 (sec. 1218)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, to develop a strategy to support the Government of
Afghanistan in its efforts to ensure the security of its
presidential election in 2014. The strategy would include
support to the Government of Afghanistan for: (1) training the
Afghan security forces to provide security at polling stations
and to protect election materials, election workers, and
officials; (2) recruiting and training female Afghan security
personnel to provide equitable access to polls for Afghan women
and to secure polling stations and other election-related
locations; and (3) securing the freedom of movement and
communication for candidates before and during the election.
Independent assessment of the Afghan National Security Forces (sec.
1219)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to provide for the conduct of a detailed
independent assessment of the strength, force structure, force
posture, and capabilities required to enable the Afghan
National Security Forces to provide security for their own
country so as to prevent Afghanistan from ever again becoming a
safe haven for terrorists that threaten Afghanistan, the
region, and the world. As determined by the Secretary, the
assessment would be conducted by either a federally-funded
research and development center or an independent, non-
governmental institute with expertise in national security and
military affairs. The provision would require that the
assessment be completed and reported to the Secretary and the
congressional defense committees by no later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act.
Report on Afghanistan Peace and Reintegration Program (sec. 1220)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives a report on the Afghanistan Peace and
Reconciliation Program (APRP). The report would be required
within 120 days of the date of enactment of this Act.
The committee notes that Department of Defense funds are
authorized to be available during fiscal year 2013 to support
the activities of the APRP to reintegrate former insurgents
into Afghan society. The APRP has had notable success in
formally reintegrating around 4,000 fighters who are willing to
lay down their weapons and support the Afghan constitution. The
APRP plays an important role in our political strategy in
Afghanistan and the committee believes that a close assessment
of the effectiveness of the APRP's activities in achieving the
program's goals and objectives would help improve that
strategy.
Subtitle C--Reports
Review and reports on Department of Defense efforts to build the
capacity of and partner with foreign security forces (sec.
1231)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Defense Policy Board to conduct a review, within 180 days of
enactment of this Act, of Department of Defense (DOD) efforts
to build the capacity of, or partner with, foreign security
forces in support of national defense and security strategies.
The Secretary of Defense would be required to report to the
congressional defense committees on the results of the review.
The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later
than 120 days after the completion of the Defense Policy Board
review, a report setting forth strategic guidance for DOD
efforts to build the capacity of, and partner with, foreign
military forces in support of national defense and security
strategies.
The committee notes that the DOD 2010 Quadrennial Defense
Review identified building partner capacity and partnership as
one of the Department's core missions. Over the last several
years, DOD authorities and programs involved in building
partner capacity and partnership have multiplied significantly.
These include, but are not limited to: the ``Section 1206''
global train and equip program; the Afghanistan Security Forces
Fund; the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund; targeted authorities
for building capacity in Yemen and East Africa; the Global
Security Contingency Fund; the State Partnership Program; the
Warsaw Initiative Fund; the Ministry of Defense Advisors
program; and the DOD counternarcotics authorities. However, the
Department has yet to clearly define the strategic ends toward
which its efforts to build partner capacity and partner with
foreign forces are directed, and how to prioritize among these
efforts. The committee believes it is critical, particularly in
a resource-constrained environment, that DOD provide clear
guidance on the objectives and priorities of these efforts to
ensure that these activities directly advance U.S. national
defense and security interests and can be assessed for their
effectiveness in achieving U.S. strategic goals.
Additional elements in annual report on military and security
developments involving the People's Republic of China (sec.
1232)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1202 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), as amended, by requiring
the Secretary of Defense to include in the Annual Report on
Military and Security Developments Involving the People's
Republic of China, certain additional information relating to
cyberwarfare, space and nuclear activities, maritime
activities, and China's foreign military transactions and
military-to-military relationships. Although some of this
information has been included in past iterations of the annual
report, the provision would codify the requirement and provide
more specificity regarding the details which the committee
would like to have included in future reports.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Improved administration of the American, British, Canadian, and
Australian Armies' Program (sec. 1241)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State, to enter into agreements relating to U.S.
participation in the land-force program known as the American,
British, Canadian, and Australian (ABCA) Armies' Program. The
ABCA Armies' Program is a multilateral organization for the
purposes of promoting interoperability among the armies and
Marine Corps of the participating countries. In addition to the
United States, the countries participating in the program are
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. The
provision would permit the negotiation of agreements to allow
for the equitable sharing of costs associated with the ABCA
Armies' Program, including administrative costs and the cost of
any monetary claims resulting from participation in the
program. The provision would allow the Department of Defense
(DOD) to accept contributions to cover these costs from the
participating nations and deposit those amounts into DOD
accounts. The authority provided under this section would
sunset at the end of 5 years.
United States participation in Headquarters Eurocorps (sec. 1242)
The committee recommends a provision that would grant the
Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
State, the authority to allow members of the armed forces to
participate as members of the staff of Headquarters Eurocorps,
one of seven ``Rapid Deployable Corps'' associated with the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Participation on
this staff by U.S. Armed Forces members would only be
authorized to support the NATO activities of that corps. The
provision would limit United States participation on the staff
of Headquarters Eurocorps to two service members until the
Secretary of Defense submits a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
on the plans, benefits, and costs of such participation.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense is
seeking to negotiate the arrangements for the United States to
join Headquarters Eurocorps as a NATO associated nation. United
States European Command (EUCOM) has indicated that
participation in Headquarters Eurocorps would be part of its
overall plans for participation in the NATO force structure,
which also includes U.S participation in the other NATO Rapid
Deployable Corps. While generally supportive of U.S.
participation within the NATO force and command structures, the
committee believes it requires more information on the costs
and benefits of U.S. participation in the Headquarters
Eurocorps before the Department assigns a number of personnel
greater than the two members of the armed forces specified
under this provision to participate in the Headquarters
Eurocorps.
Department of Defense participation in European program on multilateral
exchange of air transportation and air refueling services (sec.
1243)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State, to enter into multilateral written agreements to
provide for U.S. participation in the Air Transport, Air-to-Air
Refueling and other Exchanges of Services (``ATARES'') program
of the Movement Coordination Centre Europe. The ATARES program
provides a multilateral framework among certain European
countries for the multilateral exchange of air transportation
and air refueling services. The program would allow for the
exchange or transfer of these services on a reimbursable basis
or by replacement in kind. The provision would limit the
balance of executed flight hours, whether as credits or debits,
that the United States can accumulate under the ATARES program
to no more than 500 hours, of which the balance of executed
flight hours for air refueling may not exceed 200 hours. The
provision would also require the Comptroller General to submit
to the congressional defense committees within 1 year a report
assessing the ATARES program.
The committee recognizes the value of multilateral
cooperation in military transportation services and believes
the ATARES program may offer opportunities for efficiencies and
increased availability of additional transportation capacity to
meet U.S. requirements. The committee would authorize U.S.
participation in the ATARES program as a 5-year pilot program
and intends to monitor closely the implementation of the
program, including through the annual reports required under
this provision.
Authority to establish program to provide assistance to foreign
civilians for harm incident to combat operations of the armed
forces in foreign countries (sec. 1244)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to establish a program, under such
regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, to enable military
commanders at their discretion to provide assistance to foreign
civilians who are harmed incident to U.S. combat operations
overseas.
The committee notes that in armed conflicts in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and elsewhere, the Department of Defense has drawn
on a number of authorities, including authority to make solatia
payments and condolence payments under the Commanders'
Emergency Response Program, to provide assistance to civilians
who have suffered damage, injury or death incident to U.S.
combat operations, including for purposes of winning the hearts
and minds of the local population, promoting stability, and
enhancing the safety of U.S. personnel. Establishment of a
program under this section, in coordination with programs
administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development
and Department of State, could help to promote friendly
relations with civilian populations in combat zones and as a
result contribute to the successful completion of the U.S.
military mission in a future conflict.
Limitation on availability of funds for certain capital projects in
connection with overseas contingency operations (sec. 1245)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that Department of Defense funds may not be obligated for
certain large capital projects overseas for an overseas
contingency operation until the Secretary of Defense carries
out a detailed assessment of the sustainability and necessity
of the project. Capital projects covered by this section would
be: (1) any project for building the capability of indigenous
security forces with an estimated value over $10.0 million; or
any other project for the direct benefit of the host country
with an estimated value over $2.0 million. The provision would
also require quarterly reports to Congress on each assessment
conducted under this section. The Secretary of Defense may
waive the limitation of this section to initiate a project if
doing so would be in the U.S. national security interests, but
the assessment required under this section would have to be
completed and reported to Congress not later than 180 days
after issuance of the waiver.
Items of Special Interest
Insider threat
Since 2007, a number of U.S., international coalition, and
Afghan personnel have been killed or wounded in attacks by
Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) personnel or ANSF
impersonators. Although such attacks are not indicative of the
quality and dedication of the overwhelming majority of ANSF
personnel who serve alongside coalition forces with honor and
distinction, they raise concerns about the sufficiency of the
procedures used to screen, vet, and monitor ANSF personnel, as
well as whether there is a need for additional training of
coalition service members on how to identify insider threats
and on appropriate operational procedures while working with
ANSF units.
The committee supports ongoing efforts to reduce the risk
of insider threat-related attacks on coalition and Afghan
forces, including the use of preadmission screening procedures
for ANSF candidates and plans to increase the number of
counter-intelligence personnel within the ANSF. However, recent
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports indicate that
there remain opportunities to eliminate gaps in the screening,
vetting, and monitoring processes. Improvements, such as
sharing data collected by coalition and ANSF forces, expanding
counterintelligence capabilities, and improving the process by
which elders recommend ANSF candidates will require cooperation
from the Government of Afghanistan.
As such, the committee directs the Department to submit a
report, with a classified annex if necessary, not later than
180 days after enactment of this Act, that assesses and
categorizes the nature of insider attacks, and describes all
measures taken to protect military and civilian personnel from
future insider attacks. The report should include a description
of specific programs included in pre-deployment training for
civilian and military personnel of all ranks on identifying and
reducing insider threats, actions taken by the Government of
Afghanistan to prevent such attacks, and the status of
negotiations with the Government of Afghanistan to address the
issues raised by GAO.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization capabilities and burden-sharing
The committee recognizes the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization's (NATO) renewed focus on burden-sharing,
interoperability, and the ``Smart Defense'' initiative. The
committee welcomes these efforts and supports the ongoing work
by NATO allies to pool and share resources to get more out of
members' national defense budgets and notes that this approach
could be enhanced by replicating successful NATO programs such
as the Baltic Air Policing initiative and the Strategic Airlift
Capability program. The committee also notes that the defense
spending burden within the NATO alliance has fallen
predominantly on the United States. According to NATO
statistics, only 3 of 28 member countries met the requirement
of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on
defense in 2011. In addition, the U.S. share of total defense
spending by NATO members increased from 57 percent to 69
percent between 2001 and 2011. The committee recognizes that
Europe is dealing with significant budget issues, but urges
NATO members to work to ensure that national defense spending
levels are sufficient and defense spending decisions are
coordinated to the extent possible so as to address the
Alliance's shared security requirements.
Review of United States-Egypt military-to-military relations
The committee notes the importance of maintaining and
strengthening the close partnership between the United States
Armed Forces and the Egyptian Armed Forces. This long-standing
relationship has helped to advance U.S. national security
interests, such as counterterrorism and intelligence
cooperation in the Middle East, the safeguarding of the Camp
David Accords, the movement of U.S. forces in the region and
through the Suez Canal, and support for internal stability
during and after the departure of former President Hosni
Mubarak. To enhance this military-to-military relationship, the
U.S. Congress has authorized and appropriated approximately
$1.3 billion in security assistance to the Egyptian military
annually for more than 3 decades.
The Egyptian revolution of 2011 has begun a transition to a
democratically-elected, civilian government, which is expected
to culminate with the transfer of executive authority from the
Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to new civilian leaders in
the coming months. Egypt will continue to experience political
changes in the coming years, including in civil-military
relations. Egypt's security will also be impacted by new and
evolving developments stemming from growing instability in the
Sinai region, domestic and foreign terrorist groups, unsecured
border crossings, and the reform of security forces to ensure
domestic law and order.
The committee notes that the U.S.-Egypt military-to-
military relationship must account for the new challenges
facing Egypt's newly-elected civilian government. Furthermore,
the committee believes it is important for the United States to
engage with the new Egyptian president and parliament as they
review the military cooperation and security assistance
relationship with the United States, including how to define
their current national security priorities, what kinds of U.S.
security assistance they wish to request, and what balance they
desire between military and non-military assistance.
In light of Egypt's political and security challenges, the
committee believes the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of
State should consult with Egypt's civilian and military leaders
as part of a review of U.S. military-to-military engagement
with Egypt. The goal of this review should be: (1) to ensure
that U.S. military assistance, engagement, and arms sales are
integrated into a strategy that responds to Egypt's current
security challenges; (2) to assist the Egyptian government and
military in aligning their acquisition of defense capabilities
with their strategic requirements and security challenges; and
(3) to reinforce the democratic principle of civilian control
of the military in Egypt. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to report periodically to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, as
well as the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate on the findings of this review.
Special operations security force assistance activities
The committee notes that the defense strategic guidance
titled ``Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st
Century Defense'' states ``Whenever possible, we will develop
innovative, low-cost, and small footprint approaches to achieve
our security objectives, relying on exercises, rotational
presence, and advisory capabilities.'' The committee believes
that U.S. Special Operations Forces, because of their combat
experience, ability to operate independently, and unique
cultural and language expertise, are well suited to implement
this mandate.
The committee is aware of concerns from the Commander of
U.S. Special Operations Command and the commanders of the
theater special operations commands that the bureaucratic
processes associated with the Department of Defense's (DOD)
security force assistance authorities may, in some cases,
hamper the efforts of special operations forces to remain
engaged persistently with partner nation security forces. The
committee recognizes that such persistent engagement is
important to building the capacity of and establishing an
enduring relationship with special operations and other
security forces in priority countries.
The committee notes that Congress has made efforts in
recent years to provide more flexible and responsive
authorities to conduct security force assistance activities.
The committee encourages DOD to make more effective use of
existing authorities, including the Global Security Contingency
Fund, ``section 1206'' global train and equip authority, and
DOD counternarcotics authorities, to better support the
security force assistance activities of special operations
forces under the command of the theater special operations
commands.
Furthermore, the committee notes that section 1203 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81) required the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report due no later than 90 days after the enactment of that
Act outlining the authorities that may be necessary for U.S.
Special Operations Forces to adequately conduct
counterterrorism, unconventional warfare, and irregular warfare
in the future. That report has not been delivered to the
committee. Additionally, elsewhere in this Act and accompanying
report, the committee requires a report by the Comptroller
General of the United States on the roles of general purpose
and special operations forces in conducting security force
assistance and a review by the Defense Policy Board on DOD
efforts to build partnership capacity and partnership
initiatives. The committee looks forward to the results of
these reviews to guide future legislative or policy initiatives
with respect to security force assistance activities.
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
$519.2 million, the amount of the budget request, for the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. This provision
would also authorize specific amounts for each CTR program
element, require notification to Congress 30 days before the
Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2013
funds for a purpose other than a purpose listed in the
provision, and require notification to Congress 15 days before
the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2013
funds in excess of the specific amount authorized for each CTR
program element.
Item of Special Interest
Metrics for Cooperative Threat Reduction
Section 1308 of Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398)
requires the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program to
submit an annual report to Congress outlining a 5 year plan for
the program. Section 1304(c)(3) of the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the
National Academies of Science to submit a report reviewing the
metrics of the CTR Program. The report, ``Improving Metrics for
the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program'', issued January 25, 2012, made a number of
recommendations. The principal recommendation is that ``the DOD
should include a concise statement of its objectives and how
the program is intended to reduce threat or risk.'' The
committee understands in response to the National Academies
Report that the Department will brief Congress the summer of
2012 on revised metrics that are ``program-specific and linked
directly to overall CTR Program goals and objectives''.
The committee directs the Department of Defense to include
in its annual CTR report to Congress, a concise section on the
revised program metrics the Department has developed and an
easy to understand chart showing their progress in achieving
the metrics. The committee also directs the Department to
include in the annual CTR program report what will happen to a
particular program once the metrics are achieved considering
the following three options: (1) will the Department continue
to sustain the program and if so what is the estimated cost
over 5 years, (2) will the Department move the program in
sustainment phase to the host government or another U.S.
Government Agency, or (3) close out the program with no
additional funding. The goal is to give clear resolution of the
program once the metrics are achieved.
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.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1403)
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.
Chemical agents and munitions destruction, defense (sec. 1404)
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. 1405)
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. 1406)
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.
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile
Release of materials needed for national defense purposes from the
Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpile (sec. 1411)
The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the
Department of Defense, which would authorize the President to
delegate release authority of the National Defense Stockpile to
the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics.
Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Matters
Supplemental chemical agent and munitions destruction technologies at
Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, and Blue Grass Army Depot,
Kentucky (sec. 1421)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to consider using technologies to
supplement the neutralization destruction of the stockpile of
lethal chemical agents and munitions at Pueblo Chemical Depot,
Colorado, and Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky. The provision
would authorize the Secretary to consider explosive destruction
technologies and any technologies developed for treatment and
disposal of agent or energetic hydrolysates, if problems with
the current on-site treatment of hydrolysates are encountered.
The provision would also repeal an older provision of law that
restricted the consideration of supplemental technologies at
Pueblo Chemical Depot.
Both the Pueblo and Blue Grass depots contain a limited
number of chemical munitions that will be problematic and
unsafe for the selected neutralization technology at each
plant, including leaking munitions, reject munitions, and
explosive components. By augmenting the neutralization
technology at each plant with explosive destruction
technologies, the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives
(ACWA) program would be able to destroy these problematic
munitions safely and in a manner that could also save time and
money.
The committee notes that the ACWA program is currently
constructing the Pueblo and Blue Grass chemical agent
destruction plants, the last two facilities of the U.S.
chemical weapons destruction program. The United States is
obligated under the Chemical Weapons Convention to destroy its
entire stockpile of chemical weapons by the extended treaty
deadline of April 29, 2012. However, technical, cost and
schedule issues have prevented the Pueblo and Blue Grass
facilities from being built and operational in time to meet the
treaty deadline. The committee notes that the United States has
completed the destruction of some 90 percent of its stockpile
of chemical weapons prior to the treaty deadline, and is
proceeding with the ACWA sites as rapidly as is consistent with
the requirements of law, including requirements to protect
public health and safety.
The committee observes that the ACWA program experienced a
Nunn-McCurdy cost breach in 2011, and the Department of Defense
has recently issued a new cost and schedule estimate for the
program. If the two facilities are able to use explosive
destruction technologies, it would avoid the significant risks
that would arise from processing unsafe munitions through each
plant, and help reduce the overall cost and schedule for
completing destruction of their chemical munitions.
In order to use such technologies, the ACWA program would
first have to complete an Environmental Assessment for each
site, including public review and comment, subject to the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (Public
Law 91-190). The committee understands that the ACWA program is
undertaking such an assessment for Pueblo, and plans to do the
same at Blue Grass in the future. The committee also
understands that the ACWA program has engaged the Citizens'
Advisory Commissions at Pueblo and Blue Grass to inform them
and obtain their input on issues related to explosive
destruction technologies, and other technologies developed for
treatment and disposal of hydrolysates, if problems with
current on-site treatment of hydrolysates are encountered. The
committee directs the Department to ensure that the Citizens'
Advisory Commissions are kept fully informed and engaged on
these issues as they move forward, and expects the Department
to continue keeping Congress properly informed. The committee
also urges the Department to seek opportunities to complete the
destruction of all chemical agents and munitions at Pueblo and
Blue Grass as close to the Chemical Weapons Convention deadline
as possible, and as close to the additional December 31, 2017,
deadline established by Congress, consistent with the
requirements of law governing the chemical weapons destruction
program.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec.
1431)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$67.6 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 from the
Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of
the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (sec. 1432)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize,
retroactively, the Secretary of Defense to have established two
additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams
(WMD-CST) beyond the 55 previously authorized in law, and would
prohibit the establishment of additional WMD-CSTs unless the
Secretary of Defense requests the authority to establish such
teams and their establishment is specifically authorized by
law. The provision would also require the Secretary to submit a
report on WMD-CSTs.
The committee notes that section 1403 of the Bob Stump
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public
Law 107-314), authorized a total of 55 WMD-CSTs, with a
requirement for at least 1 team in each State and territory.
The Department of Defense established the 55 WMD-CSTs and
certified each one, as required in section 12310(c)(5) of title
10, United States Code.
Section 1082 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) required the Secretary of
Defense to establish an advisory panel to carry out an
assessment of the capabilities of the Department of Defense to
provide support to civil authorities in the event of a
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield
explosive event.
Section 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the advisory
panel to assess and make recommendations on whether there
should be any additional WMD-CSTs beyond the 55 already
authorized and, if so, how many more and where they should be
located.
Prior to the September 15, 2010, report of the advisory
panel, ``Report of the Advisory Panel on Department of Defense
Capabilities for Support of Civil Authorities After Certain
Incidents,'' the Department of Defense, using funds
appropriated by Congress, established 2 additional WMD-CSTs
beyond the 55 authorized, 1 in New York and 1 in Florida. In
its report, the advisory panel concluded that the number of
WMD-CSTs, including the 55 certified Civil Support Teams (CST)
and the 2 new (as yet uncertified) CSTs in New York and
Florida, was adequate, and recommended that the Secretary
``neither authorize more Civil Support Teams nor change their
locations at this time.''
The Department of Defense certified the new CST in New York
on November 29, 2010, and certified the new CST in Florida on
November 4, 2011.
The committee is disappointed that the Department
established 2 additional CSTs that had not been authorized,
but--given the advisory panel's conclusion that the 57 CSTs are
the adequate number and in the correct locations, and that the
2 new CSTs have been certified--the committee believes their
authorization is warranted. However, in order to prevent the
creation of future unauthorized CSTs, the committee has
included the prohibition on establishing additional CSTs,
beyond the 57 that would be authorized in the provision, unless
they are specifically authorized in law.
Budget Items
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..................................................... 452.0
Total..........................................................
............................................................ 452.0
Demand Reduction Program--expanded drug testing
The budget request included $889.5 million for the
Department of Defense's (DOD) Drug Interdiction and Counter-
drug Activities, Defense-wide, and $109.8 million for the DOD's
Drug Demand Reduction Program. The committee recommends a
decrease of $25.9 million in Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug
Activities, Defense-wide, and increase of $25.9 million in Drug
Demand Reduction Program.
The committee supports the ongoing efforts of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to expand the
existing Drug Demand Reduction Program testing program to
include prescription and synthetic drugs. Further, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to program funding
for these activities in future years.
Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan
The budget request for the Department of Defense Office of
the Inspector General (DODIG), included $273.8 million in
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)--$73.1 million less than the
fiscal year 2012 appropriated level and $76.5 million less than
the amount required to carry out the DODIG's growth plan for
fiscal year 2013. The committee recommends an increase of $59.1
million in O&M for the DODIG.
The committee recognizes that all elements of the
Department of Defense (DOD) have been required to reduce
staffing and expenditures and that a growth plan established in
2008 requires reconsideration in light of new budgetary
realities. The committee further recognizes that last year's
appropriated funding included $14.0 million for expenses
related to base realignment and closing (BRAC) that will not be
needed this year.
However, the independent audit and investigative functions
of the DODIG play a critical role in identifying waste, fraud,
and abuse in DOD programs and operations. In fiscal year 2011,
DODIG audits and investigations resulted in $2.6 billion of
savings, an average $8.79 saved for every dollar appropriated
and $1.6 million saved per DODIG employee.
The increase recommended by the committee would not fully
fund the DODIG growth plan, but would restore DODIG funding to
the fiscal year 2012 appropriated level, minus the $14.0
million for BRAC funding that is no longer needed. The
committee directs that the added funding be used by the DODIG
to conduct oversight related to military operations in
Afghanistan, review contract management and acquisitions, and
support audits to identify potential waste, fraud, and abuse.
The committee directs the DODIG to reevaluate the 2008 growth
plan and establish future staffing objectives on the basis of
audit and investigation need and current budgetary realities.
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY
OPERATIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of 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
additional 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.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1507)
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.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1508)
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. 1509)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector
General 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--Limitations and Other Matters
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1531)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that funds made available to the Department of Defense for the
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) for fiscal year 2013
remain subject to certain conditions specified in 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 explicitly authorize the use of
ASFF funds during fiscal year 2013 to increase the capacity of
the Afghanistan Ministry of Interior to recruit, vet, train,
and manage the Afghan Public Protection Force (APPF), the guard
force established to take over the provision of certain
security services from private security contractors. The
committee is concerned by reports that the APPF lacks adequate
capacity in both quantity and quality, and encourages the
Department of Defense to take appropriate steps to help build
the capacity of the APPF during this transition period. The
committee also encourages the Department to continue to monitor
and periodically assess the development of the APPF to help
ensure that this force has the capacity to provide, and is
providing, security to the U.S. military and civilian
installations, convoys, and personnel that are under its
protection.
Additionally, the provision would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a
plan for continuing to use the ASFF to build and sustain the
Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) through September
30, 2017. The committee believes the ASFF has proven effective
for purposes of building the capacity of the ANSF and
encourages the continued use of the fund to support the ANSF
during and after the transition to an Afghan security lead in
2014.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1532)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend, for
1 fiscal year, 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. The provision would also
permit the Secretary to transfer funds from the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund to certain other
accounts of the Department of Defense. Further, the provision
would permit the Secretary to expend not more than $15.0
million to provide training, equipment, services, and supplies
to counter the flow of improvised explosive device precursor
chemicals from Pakistan into locations in Afghanistan.
Plan for transition in funding of United States Special Operations
Command from supplemental funding for overseas contingency
operations to recurring funding under the future-years defense
program (sec. 1533)
The committee notes that approximately one-quarter of the
fiscal year 2013 budget request for U.S. Special Operations
Command (USSOCOM) is Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
funding. During testimony before the Committee on March 6,
2012, the Commander of USSOCOM predicted ``Even with the
conclusion of operations in Afghanistan, historical deployment
data reveals a constant demand for a ``steady state'' deployed
force of nearly 12,000 special operations forces (SOF) to
support the Geographic Combatant Commanders' requirements.''
In response to policy questions from the committee prior to
his confirmation, the Commander of USSOCOM noted ``the new
USSOCOM Commander will be challenged to deliver the required
[SOF] capabilities in a fiscally constrained environment
knowing the budget without OCO transition does not fully
resource the Command.'' Furthermore, the Commander of USSOCOM
indicated ``A decrease in the Command's budget level would
severely impact my ability to meet the demand for SOF and
significantly increase the risk to our Nation's security'' and
``for some higher intensity SOF elements, the OCO percentage is
greater than 75 percent. Without this transition, mission
failure is a real possibility.''
The committee is aware that the fiscal year 2013 budget
request begins the initial migration of approximately $960.0
million in USSOCOM funding from the OCO to the base budget to
support enduring SOF requirements. However, the committee is
concerned that the Department of Defense has not identified a
plan to fully transition funding for enduring SOF requirements
from the OCO to base budget in future years, potentially
putting maintenance of SOF capabilities at risk. As such, the
committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense
committees, as part of the fiscal year 2014 budget request,
with a plan to fully transition appropriate USSOCOM funding
from the OCO to base budget over the future-years defense
program to maintain critical and enduring SOF capabilities.
Extension of authority on Task Force for Business and Stability
Operations in Afghanistan (sec. 1534)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
fiscal year 2013 the authority under section 1535 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4426), as amended, for the
Department of Defense Task Force on Business and Stability
Operations in Afghanistan. The provision would authorize the
use of up to $93.0 million in Overseas Contingency Operations,
Operation and Maintenance, for the Army, to support the Task
Force's activities to support the counterinsurgency strategy
through economic development and job creation.
Assessments of training activities and intelligence activities of the
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (sec.
1535)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to conduct assessments of the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization's (JIEDDO)
training activities and intelligence activities.
Six years after the Department of Defense (DOD) established
JIEDDO as its coordinating agency to lead, advocate, and
coordinate responses to the improvised explosive device (IED)
threat across the Department, according to the Government
Accountability Office, DOD continues to experience
fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in its counter-IED
efforts. Two areas where the committee is most concerned about
these risks are in the JIEDDO intelligence analysis activities
and its training activities. In the case of both of these
activities, JIEDDO continues to conduct activities that are
wholly duplicative of various elements of the military
departments and the intelligence community. Before the
committee recommends significant reductions in these
activities, the committee hopes the Secretary of Defense--in
consultation with the appropriate DOD elements--will identify
areas of duplication and make an assessment of whether
duplication of effort is necessary to ensure mission success.
The committee hopes this internal assessment will result in
JIEDDO divesting of its training activities no later than the
end of fiscal year 2013. Further, the committee hopes JIEDDO
will transfer the Counter-IED Operations Integration Center to
the appropriate entities within the military departments,
intelligence directorates, or to elements within the
intelligence community no later than the end of fiscal year
2013.
Budget Items
AH-64 Apache Block IIIB new build
The budget request included $71.0 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA) Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO),
for AH-64 Apache Block IIIB new build aircraft as war
replacements.
The committee recommends a decrease of $71.0 million in APA
OCO for AH-64 Apache Block IIIB aircraft. The committee
continues to disagree, as noted in last year's Senate report
accompanying S. 1253 (S. Rept. 112-26) the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, that procurement of
this aircraft, while still in development and testing, is a
legitimate war loss replacement.
Rapid equipping soldier support equipment
The budget request included $98.2 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO),
for rapid equipping soldier support equipment (RESSE). The
committee notes that significant balances of funds appropriated
in prior years remain available for obligation in fiscal year
2013. The committee recommends a decrease of $37.0 million in
OPA OCO for RESSE.
Solar power units
The budget request included $98.2 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO),
for rapid equipping soldier support equipment (RESSE). The
committee notes that the Army's Rapid Equipping Force has
initiated the procurement of solar power units that
significantly increase the operational energy effectiveness and
sustainability of remotely located units in Afghanistan. These
solar power units will be deployed to support Village Stability
Operations, and will substantially reduce the requirement for
fuel delivery by ground convoy or by air. These units provide
sustainable power for U.S. forces and the Afghan people. The
committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in OPA OCO
for RESSE solar power units.
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund
The budget request included $62.5 billion for Operation and
Maintenance (OM), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), of
which $400.0 million was for the Afghanistan Infrastructure
Fund (AIF) in fiscal year 2013 to support a program to develop
and carry out large-scale infrastructure projects that support
the counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. The committee's
concerns regarding the need to transition responsibility for
large-scale infrastructure projects in Afghanistan from the
U.S. Department of Defense to the U.S. Agency for International
Development are discussed in the section of this report
relating to title XII. The committee also continues to have
concerns about the sustainability of large-scale infrastructure
projects in Afghanistan as the Government of Afghanistan
assumes increasing responsibility for Afghanistan's economic
development.
The committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million for
OM, OCO, for AIF, to a level of $350.0 million.
Commanders' Emergency Response Program
The budget request included $400.0 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) in
Afghanistan for fiscal year 2013.
The committee notes that a primary purpose of CERP is to
enhance force protection for U.S. troops by enabling commanders
to fund projects that directly address the humanitarian and
reconstruction needs of the Afghan people, particularly in less
secure areas of the country, thereby gaining the support of the
local populace. As U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan decrease,
the committee anticipates that the requirement for CERP will
decrease at the same time, as occurred in Iraq. The committee
also notes that the Commander, International Security
Assistance Force, has issued new, more stringent guidelines for
the use of CERP in Afghanistan. In part as a result of these
new guidelines, the rate of expenditure of CERP funds in
Afghanistan has decreased significantly. According to a Defense
Department report, as of March 31, 2012, CERP in Afghanistan
had committed $61.2 million, obligated $31.4 million, and
disbursed $19.0 million of the $400.0 million authorized for
the program during fiscal year 2012.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $200.0
million in OMA, OCO, for CERP to a level of $200.0 million to
be available for CERP in Afghanistan.
Installation information infrastructure support for United States
Southern Command
The budget request included $393.2 million in the Operation
and Maintenance, Army (OMA), in the Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) account for Other Personnel Support. At the
request of United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), the
committee recommends a decrease of $40.0 million in OMA, OCO
and an increase of $40.0 million in Other Procurement, Army,
OCO for the Installation Information Infrastructure
Modification Program to support the SOUTHCOM Commander's
information infrastructure requirements.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
The budget request included $1,675.4 million in the
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF). This amount
includes $950.5 million for the attack the network line of
operation; $149.5 million for the train the force line of
operation; and $400.0 million for the defeat the device line of
operation.
As noted in title I of this report, the committee
recommended a transfer of $227.4 million from the JIEDDF's base
budget request for staff and infrastructure to the OCO budget
request. Adding these funds together, JIEDDF's total budget
request is: $1,902.8 million.
The committee remains deeply concerned about the threat
posed by, and the deadly impact of, improvised explosive
devices (IED) to the nearly 70,000 U.S. service members still
deployed in Afghanistan. The committee will continue to support
robust funding for these efforts as long as U.S. service
members are deployed in Afghanistan.
Through fiscal year 2012, Congress has authorized and
appropriated over $20.0 billion to the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) to address the
IED threat. In addition, other Department of Defense (DOD)
components, including the military services, have spent
billions of dollars from their own funds developing counter-IED
capabilities.
Six years after DOD established JIEDDO as its coordinating
agency to lead, advocate, and coordinate responses to the IED
threat across the Department, according to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), DOD continues to lack
comprehensive visibility of its counter-IED expenditures and
investments, including those from JIEDDO, the military
services, and relevant DOD agencies.
In March 2011, the GAO found that no fewer than 31 DOD
entities, many of which started as ad hoc organizations, play a
significant role in various urgent needs processes. For
example, GAO reported, JIEDDO, the military services, and the
Special Operations Command have all established their own
processes and guidance on meeting specific urgent needs, and
their own feedback mechanisms for assessing how well fielded
solutions meet such needs.
In the GAO's February 2012 report on DOD's counter-IED
efforts, the Comptroller General warned, again, that DOD risks
fragmentation, overlap, and duplication because it still does
not have a comprehensive listing of DOD-wide counter-IED
initiatives. Additionally, GAO reported that although JIEDDO
recently issued its own strategic plan, it has not developed a
DOD-wide plan. By not having a comprehensive DOD-wide strategic
plan with results-oriented strategic goals, DOD is limited in
its ability to evaluate the effectiveness of its counter-IED
efforts and prioritize projects within future budget levels.
Further, the committee is concerned that JIEDDO has hundreds of
millions in unexpended authorized and appropriated funds.
In light of these concerns, the committee recommends a
total reduction of $200.0 million to the budget request for the
JIEDDF. The reduction to each line of operation is reflected in
the budget tables.
Items of Special Interest
Department of Defense procurement of Mi-17 helicopters through
Rosoboronexport
The Department of Defense contract with Rosoboronexport,
awarded by the Department of the Army on June 1, 2011, on a
sole-source basis, procures at minimum 21 Mi-17 helicopters and
spares for the Afghan military. The contract has a total value
of nearly $1.0 billion and includes options for additional
aircraft, spares, and support. The Department has indicated
that the procurement of additional Mi-17 for the Afghan
military may be required.
The Department states that ``Rosoboronexport is the sole
entity controlling export of military-use Mi-17 helicopters.''
The committee notes that in 2009 the Department of the Navy
procured four commercial Mi-17 helicopters through a private
U.S. broker following an open and competitive selection
process. Those helicopters were produced by the original
equipment manufacturer and are presently in service with the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Air Training Command-
Afghanistan. On July 6, 2010, the Department of the Navy
released a Request for Proposals for a second competitive
procurement of Mi-17s, this time for 21 aircraft. On December
20, 2010, prior to a contract award, the Department of Defense
cancelled the procurement.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to conduct a review of the Department's current process
for procuring Mi-17 helicopters and parts through
Rosoboronexport. The Comptroller should provide this report to
the congressional defense committees by no later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act. The report shall be
submitted in an unclassified format, but may include a
classified annex if necessary. The review should, at a minimum,
assess:
1. The availability of alternative means for the Department
of Defense to procure commercial or military versions of the
Mi-17 helicopter and parts, rather than buying through
Rosoboronexport.
2. The feasibility of procuring a commercial version of the
Mi-17 in lieu of the military version (including an assessment
of any applicable legal restrictions on such procurement, the
relative cost of military and commercial systems, and the
operational significance of any differences between military
and commercial systems).
3. The impact that purchasing Mi-17 aircraft through
Rosoboronexport can reasonably be expected to have on the risk
of counterfeiting, access to technical data, and aircraft
safety.
4. The reasons for the Department of Defense's cancellation
of the Navy's 2010 competitive procurement of 21 Mi-17
helicopters.
The report should include the Comptroller General's
findings and recommendations, including findings as to the
relative cost-effectiveness of the procurement approaches taken
by the Department of the Army and the Department of the Navy,
and any recommendations that the Comptroller General may have
as to whether future procurements of Mi-17s should be made on a
competitive basis, and whether sources other than
Rosoboronexport should be considered.
Future size of the Afghan National Security Forces
The committee believes that strong, capable, and sustained
Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) are a fundamental
component of the long-term United States and coalition strategy
in Afghanistan. To this end, the United States and coalition
partners have invested substantial resources to build the ANSF
to a force of 352,000 in 2012 and sustain that force over time
so that, as U.S. and coalition forces draw down, Afghan forces
will be sufficiently capable to maintain the hard-won gains
that U.S., coalition, and Afghan forces have secured at great
cost in both blood and treasure. To achieve this objective, the
committee believes it is imperative that the ANSF is correctly
sized, structured, and resourced to provide enduring security
for their country.
The committee notes with concern that news reports indicate
administration officials are considering significant reductions
in the size of the ANSF after 2014, by as much as one-third.
These proposed reductions appear to be based on presumptions
about future security conditions in Afghanistan and the
affordability of sustaining these forces years from now. The
committee believes that any decisions on the future size and
composition of and funding for the ANSF after these forces
assume the lead for security throughout Afghanistan in 2014
must be driven principally by strategic considerations and the
security conditions on the ground at that time. As such, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report
periodically to the congressional defense committees with an
assessment of the needs of the ANSF, to include metrics on
factors that will influence decisions on the size and
composition of this force. The report should also identify and
assess risks to security and stability in Afghanistan
associated with reductions to the size and changes in the
composition of the ANSF.
Finally, the committee believes that long-term funding for
the ANSF should not be a U.S.-only effort and that all North
Atlantic Treaty Organization allies and partners share an
interest in supporting a strong ANSF that will be sufficiently
capable of providing enduring security for the country of
Afghanistan. As such, the committee commends those partners who
have already committed financial support for this effort and
urges the administration to continue its efforts to secure
additional support from the international community.
TITLE XVI--MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION
COMMISSION
Short title (sec. 1601)
The committee recommends a provision that would cite title
XVI of this Act as the ``Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission Act of 2012''.
Purpose (sec. 1602)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the purpose of the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission as (1) ensuring the long-term
viability of the All-Volunteer Force; (2) enabling a high
quality of life for military families; and (3) modernizing and
achieving fiscal sustainability of the compensation and
retirement systems.
Definitions (sec. 1603)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
definitions for common terms used in the Military Compensation
and Retirement Modernization Commission Act of 2012.
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (sec.
1604)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
in the Executive Branch an independent commission called the
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.
The provision would provide that the Commission be composed of
nine members appointed by the President, in consultation with
the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives. The
provision would provide that the President designate one member
as the Commission's Chairman. The provision would require that
Commission members have significant expertise in federal
compensation and retirement systems, including the military
compensation and retirement systems, private sector
compensation, retirement, or human resource systems, actuarial
science, and be selected based on their knowledge and
experience with the uniformed services and the military
compensation and retirement systems. The provision would
require that at least five members of the Commission have
active-duty military experience, that at least one member have
experience as an enlisted member of the armed forces, that at
least one member have experience as a member of a reserve
component, and that at least one member have been a spouse of a
military member, or be someone with significant experience in
military family issues. Finally, the provision would prohibit
the appointment of individuals as members of the Commission who
are, or were within the year preceding appointment, employed by
a veterans service organization or military-related advocacy
group or association.
Commission hearings and meetings (sec. 1605)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
to conduct hearings on recommendations for legislative change
under consideration, and that all hearings be open to the
public, except those where classified information might be
considered. The provision would require that any hearing open
to the public be advertised on a federal website no less than
14 days prior to the hearing. The provision would require the
Commission to hold its initial meeting within 30 days of all
members being appointed. The provision would establish that
five members constitute a quorum of the Commission. Lastly, the
provision would require the Commission to seek written public
comment on recommendations under consideration.
Principles and procedure for commission recommendations (sec. 1606)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
to conduct a review of the military retirement and compensation
systems in the context of current compensation and retirement
programs, force management objectives, and changes in life
expectancy and the labor force. The provision would require the
President, within 5 months of the establishment of the
Commission, to establish and transmit to Congress and the
Commission principles for modernizing the military compensation
and retirement systems, including maintaining recruitment and
retention of the best military personnel, modernizing the
active and reserve military compensation and retirement
systems, differentiating between active and reserve military
service, differentiating between service in the armed forces
and service in the other uniformed services, and ensuring the
fiscal sustainability of the military compensation and
retirement systems. The provision would require the Secretary
of Defense, within 9 months of the establishment of the
Commission, to transmit to Congress and the Commission the
Secretary's recommendations for military compensation and
retirement modernization, and would require the Secretary to
consult the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Commerce,
and Homeland Security on recommendations that affect the Public
Health Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard, respectively. The
provision would require the Commission to conduct public
hearings on the Secretary's recommendations. The provision
would require the Commission, within 15 months of its
establishment, to transmit to the President and Congress a
report containing its findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for modernizing the military compensation and
retirement systems, and legislative proposals necessary to
implement those recommendations.
Finally, the provision would require that recommendations
of the Commission grandfather the benefits of service members
who first became a member of a uniformed service before the
date of enactment of a military compensation and retirement
modernization act pursuant to this title, except that such
recommendations may include an opt-in mechanism for members who
would choose to be covered by some or all of the provisions of
a military compensation and retirement modernization act.
Consideration of commission recommendations by the President and
Congress (sec. 1607)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President, within 60 days of receiving the report of the
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
required under section 1606 of this title, to transmit to
Congress and the Commission a report approving or disapproving
the Commission's recommendations. The provision would also
provide for a procedure for the Commission to revise its
recommendations in response to a Presidential disapproval.
Finally, the provision would provide for expedited and
protected consideration of military compensation and retirement
modernization legislation in the Senate and the House of
Representatives, without amendment, and without being subject
to points of order, other than budget points of order.
Pay for members of the commission (sec. 1608)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the pay rate for members of the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission as the daily equivalent of
the annual rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive
Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code. The
provision would set the pay rate for the Chairman of the
Commission as the daily equivalent of the annual rate of pay
for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of
title 5, United States Code.
Executive Director (sec. 1609)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
to appoint, and fix the rate of pay of, an Executive Director
in accordance with section 3161 of title 5, United States Code.
The provision would prohibit the appointment as Executive
Director of any person having served on active duty in the
armed forces, as a civilian employee of the Department of
Defense, or as an employee of a veterans service organization
or military-related advocacy group or association during the 1-
year period preceding the date of appointment.
Staff (sec. 1610)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
Commission Executive Director to appoint and fix the rate of
pay of additional personnel to serve as staff for the
Commission. The provision would limit the number of Department
of Defense personnel detailed to the Commission to no more than
one-third of the total personnel employed as staff, and would
prohibit the detail to the Commission staff of anyone employed
by the Department of Defense who was involved in the formation
of the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense to the
Commission. The provision would limit the number of personnel
eligible for military retired pay to no more than one-fourth of
the total personnel serving as Commission staff. The provision
would prohibit a person from serving on the Commission staff if
that person had been employed by a veterans service
organization or military-related advocacy group or association
within the 1-year period preceding employment on the Commission
staff. Finally, the provision would prohibit the service of any
staff member to the Commission employed by or detailed from the
Department of Defense from being considered in that staff
member's efficiency or fitness report.
Contracting authority (sec. 1611)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
Commission to lease space and acquire personal property to the
extent funds are available.
Judicial review precluded (sec. 1612)
The committee recommends a provision that would preclude
the actions of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
under section 1606 of this title, and of the President under
section 1607(a) of this title, from judicial review.
Termination (sec. 1613)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide for
the termination of the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission no later than 26 months after the
Commission's establishment date.
Funding (sec. 1614)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013, $10.0 million be
available to the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission until expended to carry out its duties
under this title.
TITLE XVII--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE AIR FORCE
National commission on the structure of the Air Force (secs. 1701-1709)
The committee recommends a provision that would create a
commission to study the appropriate makeup of the Air Force,
considering that the Department of the Air Force draws upon
active-duty forces, the Air Force Reserve, and the Air National
Guard.
Included in the budget request was a plan by the Air Force
to retire or realign various aviation units, and to cut 9.9
thousand personnel from the rolls, including 3.9 thousand
active duty personnel, 5.1 thousand from the Air National Guard
and 0.9 thousand from the Air Force Reserve. These changes
represent a percentage reduction of 1.2 percent, 4.8 percent,
and 1.3 percent, respectively, of force structure for each
component.
The committee believes that there is little justification
for the relative imbalance in the cuts applied to the Air
National Guard. The Air Force and the Department of Defense
have been negotiating potential compromise outcomes that would
change the relative distribution of aircraft and personnel, but
those negotiations have as yet been unproductive. Since the Air
Force proposes to implement many of the planned moves in fiscal
year 2013, the committee feels it must take action now to delay
those actions that would be difficult or impossible to reverse,
and instead place the Air Force's judgment on appropriate force
structure mixes under the scrutiny of a national commission.
The commission would be made up of four members appointed
by leadership of the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives and four members appointed by
the President. The commission, in considering possible force
structure adjustments, would be directed to identify a
structure that:
(1) meets current and anticipated requirements of the
combatant commands;
(2) achieves an appropriate balance between the
regular and reserve components of the Air Force, taking
advantage of the unique strengths and capabilities of
each;
(3) ensures that the reserve components of the Air
Force have the capacity needed to support current and
anticipated homeland defense and disaster assistance
missions in the United States;
(4) provides for sufficient numbers of regular
members of the Air Force to provide a base of trained
personnel from which the personnel of the reserve
components of the Air Force could be recruited;
(5) maintains a peacetime rotation force to avoid
exceeding operational tempo goals of 1:2 for regular
members of the Air Forces and 1:5 for members of the
reserve components of the Air Force; and
(6) maximizes achievable costs savings.
The commission would be required to produce a report not
later than March 31, 2013.
The provision would also prevent the Air Force from using
any fiscal year 2013 funds to divest, retire, or transfer, or
prepare to divest, retire, or transfer, any aircraft of the Air
Force assigned to units of the Air National Guard or Air Force
Reserve as of May 31, 2012.
The provision would allow an exception for the Secretary of
the Air Force to divest or retire, or prepare to divest or
retire, C-5A aircraft, if the Secretary were to replace that
aircraft through a transfer of C-5B, C-5M, or C-17 aircraft so
as to maintain all Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve
units impacted by such divestment or retirement at current or
higher assigned manpower levels to operate the transferred
aircraft.
The provision also includes authorization of an additional
$1.4 billion for the purpose of freezing Air Force structure in
place or as planned in order to reserve decision space for the
National Commission.
The amount of this additional authorization of
appropriations is based on a rough estimate by the Department
of the Air Force of the cost required to carry out this
section. The committee expects that a review and analysis of
the actions required to carry out this section may result in a
cost to the Air Force that differs from the additional
authorization of appropriation. The committee expects to be
promptly notified once the Air Force determines the total cost
to carry out this provision.
The Air Force budget request for fiscal year 2013 assumed
roughly $1.4 billion in savings that derived from retiring
several systems, cutting the numbers of systems that remain,
and realigning systems between the active and reserve
components.
The committee completely understands that the Air Force had
to make tough choices in the budget. However, many of the
choices the Air Force made are puzzling, and almost all are
lacking sufficient analysis to support the conclusions in the
budget. Some actually fly in the face of what the Air Force
asserted just within the past couple of years. For example, a
very troubling aspect of the budget proposal is that, within
these force structure changes, the cuts in manpower and
aircraft would fall disproportionately on the Air National
Guard. In the fighter forces, the Air Force is planning for a
cut of almost one third in the A-10 force, with that cut
weighted heavily toward the Air National Guard. Original data
provided by the Air Force showed that, simultaneously with
making these cuts in A-10 force structure, the Air Force was
planning to increase the size of the active-duty A-10 training
squadrons.
In tactical airlift programs, the Air Force had established
a requirement, validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council, for 38 C-27 aircraft to provide direct support to Army
ground forces. All of those aircraft were slated to go to the
Guard. The committee observes that the Air Force joined what
was a joint program with the Army, and then took sole ownership
of it. Air Force officials testified that they needed to pursue
the C-27 because the C-130 could not meet requirements. Now,
the Air Force has reversed course, and claims that the C-130 is
adequate for meeting the direct support mission for the Army.
The committee believes that changing of Air Force force
structure is too important to be approached with such a lack of
rationale, unsupported by objective analysis. The committee has
recommended two steps to improve this situation. For the near
term, the committee is recommending creation of a National
Commission on the Structure of the Air Force that would report
recommendations next year on this matter. Elsewhere, for the
longer term, the committee is recommending a provision that
would direct the Comptroller General to develop recommendations
for objective criteria to be used by the Department of Defense
to make decisions relating to realignments of units employed at
military installations that are not currently covered by
section 2687 of title 10, United States Code.
The committee is concerned that, in an effort to realign
its force structure, valuable and necessary coordination
between the Air Force, Army, and National Guard regarding the
Air Force's fiscal year 2013 force structure modifications were
overlooked. In addition, the committee is concerned that the
Secretary of the Air Force has failed to provide accurate
analysis on the effects of the Air Force modifications
decision. Earlier this year, the Secretary of the Air Force
sent a letter to committee members in an attempt to justify the
Air Force's fiscal year 2013 force structure modifications that
result in the reallocation of Air Force Reserve and Air
National Guard units. However, the numbers provided in the
Secretary's letter are vastly different from numbers received
and coordinated between Air Force and Army personnel on-site at
locations being affected.
Therefore, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of
the Air Force suspend all force structure adjustments until
October, 1, 2013, to allow the committee to review the
recommendations of the National Commission on the Structure of
the Air Force as they pertain to: (1) fielding of integrated
joint training, command and control, and essential
capabilities; and (2) current and anticipated requirements that
support current defense strategy.
Retention of core functions of the Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom
Air Force Base pending future structure study (sec. 1710)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the Secretary of the Air Force shall retain the current
leadership rank and core functions of the Electronic Systems
Center at Hanscom Air Force Base as existed as of November 1,
2011, until 180 days after the National Commission on the
Structure of the Air Force submits to the congressional defense
committees the report required under section 1703.
The committee is also puzzled by the Air Force's decision
to realign manpower and core functions at the Electronic
Systems Center (ESC). Last September, the Commander of Air
Force Materiel Command and the Air Force Service Acquisition
Executive asserted that the programs executed by ESC employ the
largest acquisition workforce and noted that the delivery of
integrated electronic capabilities, multifaceted command and
control (C2) requirements, and cross-cutting affordable
solutions in the cyber domain supported the current defense
strategy. Therefore, the committee strongly urges the Secretary
of the Air Force to retain until October 1, 2013, the current
manpower and leadership authorizations as well as core
functions of ESC with the same integrated mission elements,
responsibilities, and capabilities as exists from November 1,
2011. This would allow the committee to review the
recommendations of the National Commission on the Structure of
the Air Force as they pertain to: (1) acquisition and fielding
of integrated C2 and cyber capabilities; or (2) current and
anticipated requirements related to integration across multiple
Program Executive Offices involved in solutions relating to
command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence
(C4I) mission areas, ground/air/space networks, datalinks,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and electronic
warfare that support current defense strategy.
The committee also directs the Comptroller General to
prepare an independent assessment of the impact of the
reorganization of ESC as it relates to national defense
including: (1) Air Force acquisition and fielding of integrated
C2 and cyber capabilities; (2) Life Cycle Management Center
Commander management, span of control, and integration across
multiple Program Executive Offices involved in C4I mission
areas, ground/air/space networks, datalinks, C2, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance, and electronic warfare cyber;
(3) enablers required to execute ESC's C4I mission, to include
location of expertise, source of expertise, and identification
of talent shortfalls; and (4) cycle time drivers for electronic
system contractual actions and ultimate fielding timelines.
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, other than the overseas contingency
operations projects authorized in title XXIX, and summarize
that funding by account. Funding for base closure projects is
summarized in the table that follows, and is explained in
additional detail in the table included in title XXVII of this
report.
The fiscal year 2013 budget requested $11.2 billion for
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount,
$8.7 billion was requested for military construction, $1.7
billion for the construction and operation of family housing,
and $476.7 million for base closure activities, including
$126.7 million to implement the results of the 2005 Base
Realignment and Closure round.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations
for military construction and housing programs totaling $10.6
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 2013.
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 October 1, 2015, or the
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is later.
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.9 billion for military construction and $534.7 million
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.6 billion for military construction and $534.7 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2013.
The budget requested $192.0 million to construct a new
barracks at the United States Military Academy (USMA). The
committee has significant concerns about the condition of the
current barracks at USMA. Their condition is reminiscent of
other facilities that caused national outrage. The committee
has been informed that the Army does not plan to renovate its
existing barracks infrastructure until fiscal year 2018. The
committee believes this is unacceptable and would support
immediate action to begin renovations using available operation
and maintenance funds.
The budget requests $30.0 million for infrastructure at
Fort Bragg, North Carolina to support construction of
facilities for special operations forces. These projects are
contained in this year's budget request.
The committee recommends eliminating this infrastructure
project since the resulting infrastructure would not constitute
a ``complete and useable'' facility as required by statute. The
committee recommends moving that $30.0 million to the
facilities the infrastructure was expected to support, as
inclusion in those facilities will yield complete and useable
facilities.
The committee directs the Special Operations Command
(SOCOM) to provide updated DD form 1391s prior to final passage
of the bill with these funds properly apportioned to the
facilities requiring infrastructure. The committee further
directs SOCOM to budget for complete and useable facilities
that do not require supporting stand-alone infrastructure. The
committee reiterates the requirement that military construction
projects, even those supporting special forces, be complete and
useable.
The budget requests $84.0 million for the Millennium Site
cemetery expansion at Arlington National Cemetery (ANC). The
committee notes that the Army's military construction account
has historically not been used to authorize construction at
ANC, and the committee believes changing this precedent would
not be in the best interest of Arlington National Cemetery.
Further, the committee notes that the Appropriations
committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives have
moved funding from the Army's military construction accounts to
Cemeterial Expenses. The request from Arlington National
Cemetery has been fully funded in the Cemeterial Expenses
account.
The committee supports fully funding the Arlington National
Cemetery request; however, to minimize disruption of the
planned cemetery expansion and ensure the project is addressed
in the appropriate budget line, the committee recommends
removing this request from the military construction accounts
consistent with the actions taken by the Senate and House
Appropriations committees.
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 2013. 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 2013. It 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 2013 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 2010 project
(sec. 2104)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in the table in section 2101(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(division B of Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2628) to allow for
the construction of a standard design Access Control Point at
Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2009 projects (sec.
2105)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization for two Army fiscal year 2009 military
construction projects until October 1, 2013, or the date of
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction
for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later. This extension was
requested by the Department of Defense.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 projects (sec.
2106)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization for five Army fiscal year 2010 military
construction projects until October 1, 2013, or the date of
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction
for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later. This extension was
requested by the Department of Defense.
Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project
(sec. 2107)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
Cadet Barracks at the United States Military Academy, New York.
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.7 billion for military construction and $480.4 million
for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal
year 2013.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.7 billion for military construction and $480.4 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2013.
The budget requested $14.8 million for a Broad Area
Maritime Surveillance Maintenance Training Facility at Point
Mugu, California. The Department has requested a change in
location for that project to Ventura County. This change would
result in a $2.1 million reduction in the project. The
committee recommends this change of location and reduction in
funding.
The budget requests $280.0 million for the second increment
of the Explosives Handling Wharf #2 in Naval Base Kitsap,
Washington. The committee understands that the Department will
be unable to obligate and expend the full amount of the budget
request and therefore recommends a $25.8 million reduction.
The budget requests $25.9 million for the second increment
of the North Ramp Parking at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.
Because of continuing concerns with the realignment of United
States Marines from Okinawa to Guam, addressed later in a
separate Item of Special Interest in this title, the committee
recommends elimination of 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 2013. 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 2013. It 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 2013 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 2013 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 an
Explosives Handling Wharf #2 at Naval Base Kitsap, Washington.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2009 projects (sec.
2206)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2009 authorization for three projects until October
1, 2013, or the date of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2010 projects (sec.
2207)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2010 authorization for three projects until October
1, 2013, or the date of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later.
Realignment of Marines in the Asia-Pacific region (sec. 2208)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
prohibition on funds for construction activities to implement
the realignment of Marine Corps' forces from Okinawa to other
locations.
Items of Special Interest
Comptroller General of the United States assessment of the costs of
realignment of the Marines in the Asia-Pacific region
On April 27, 2012, the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative
Committee issued a joint statement in which they detailed plans
for the realignment of marines on Okinawa. Specifically, the
U.S. and Japan have decided to delink the realignment of
marines from Okinawa to Guam from the construction of the
Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF).
The plan contemplates fewer marines moving from Okinawa to
Guam than planned in the 2006 Roadmap to Realignment Agreement.
This should result in a reduction of the size and scope of the
Guam military buildup. Of the approximately 9,000 marines that
will now eventually leave Okinawa, less than 5,000 would be
moved to Guam and, of those, most would be rotational forces.
The joint statement also refers to the plan to rotate marines
to Australia and to restation marine forces on Hawaii.
This joint statement describes the plan for marines in the
Asia-Pacific in broad terms, but leaves unanswered many of the
details, particularly with respect to cost and timing of the
realignment. The Comptroller General has been involved in
assessing the costs associated with the realignment of marines
in the past, specifically in its report entitled, Comprehensive
Cost Information and Analysis Alternatives Needed to Assess
Military Posture in Asia (GAO-11-316), May 2011.
The committee remains concerned with the lack of
comprehensive cost and schedule data associated with this
important U.S. force posture issue. The strategic implications
of the realignment are the subject of an ongoing independent
assessment commissioned by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to
section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to assess the costs associated with the
revised plan to realign marines in the Asia-Pacific region as
set forth in the joint statement of the United States-Japan
Security Consultative Committee dated April 27, 2012. The
assessment shall identify and assess costs associated with the
initiatives' projected movement of marines to Guam, Hawaii, and
Australia. To the extent possible, the assessment shall
distinguish between costs that are known, costs that are
estimated, and costs that are not yet known and cannot yet be
estimated. The assessment should also include an estimate of
the recurring annual costs of the moves that will affect future
budgets for the Department of the Defense, including costs for
the sustainment of forces, base operating support, and other
operations and maintenance requirements.
The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that the Comptroller General receives access to such
information and other support as the General Comptroller
requires to perform this assessment. The Comptroller General
shall report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2013,
on the results of this assessment.
U.S. force posture in the Asia-Pacific and realignment of the U.S.
Marines on Okinawa
The committee strongly supports a robust U.S. military
force posture in the Asia-Pacific region as the cornerstone of
peace and stability and to underwrite the development of new
economic and security partnerships. As such, the stationing of
U.S. military forces in the Asia-Pacific will stand as an
unequivocal commitment to U.S. involvement in the region, and
will secure our national interests as well as the mutual
interests of our partners. To this end, the United States has
embarked on a series of initiatives intended to realign its
military force structure to respond to regional interests and
it is essential that these initiatives are guided by sound
strategic concepts and plans for force posture that are
militarily effective, operationally supportable, and fiscally
and politically sustainable.
The committee notes that U.S. bilateral security
arrangements in the region, especially with Japan and with
South Korea, remain the foundation of our security posture and
activities in Asia. One key initiative in the furtherance of
the U.S.-Japan bilateral arrangement involves changes to the
stationing of U.S. forces in Japan and specifically Okinawa.
The Defense Policy Review Initiative, as further detailed in
the U.S.-Japan Alliance Transformation and Realignment for the
Future and the 2006 U.S.-Japan Roadmap for Realignment
Implementation agreement (``Roadmap agreement''), laid out a
series of U.S. force consolidations and base closures intended
to improve the cooperation of the two allies and reduce the
burden on local Japanese communities.
Over the past few years, the committee has become
increasingly concerned that terms of the Roadmap agreement as
they related to the movement of marines from Okinawa to Guam
and to the development of a replacement facility for the
existing Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma, were
unrealistic, unworkable, and unaffordable. The committee also
expressed concern last year about posture planning for U.S.
forces in the Asia-Pacific; and specifically the strategic
implications and costs of U.S. commitments throughout the
region. Subsequently, Congress included legislative provisions
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) that required an independent assessment of
the U.S. force posture in the Pacific Command area of
responsibility and that prohibited the obligation of fiscal
year 2012 funds or funds provided by the Government of Japan
until certain requirements were met. The independent
assessment, which is due to Congress in June 2012, was intended
to help identify emerging opportunities to update the U.S.
force posture for a better alignment with dynamic regional
interests free of the inertia of past decisions.
On April 27, 2012, the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative
Committee issued a joint statement detailing changes to the
plans for the realignment of marines on Okinawa. Specifically,
the U.S. and Japan separated the requirement of tangible
progress on the construction of the Futenma Replacement
Facility (FRF) from other marine restationing efforts on
Okinawa to return lands to local communities. Also, while the
overall number of marines to leave Okinawa remained essentially
the same as the previous agreement, at about 9,000, the new
arrangement will result in fewer marines being restationed to
Guam with the remainder of the forces being relocated to new
locations in Australia, Hawaii, or to the west coast of the
United States.
The committee notes, however, that the parties have made no
adjustment to the plan to build the FRF at Camp Schwab in the
Henoko area of Okinawa and provided no timeline for the
completion of construction of the FRF. In the meantime, the
Marine Corps will continue to operate from MCAS Futenma, a
heavily-encroached air base in the crowded Ginowan area of
Okinawa, in facilities and infrastructure that are in
deteriorated condition due to the deliberate decision over a
number of years to defer maintenance, repairs, and renovations
in light of the eventual base closure. The committee is
concerned that any decision to further delay the construction
of a FRF without a plan to provide for safe, secure facilities
at MCAS Futenma will put marines and their families at risk.
Accordingly, the committee strongly recommends that the U.S.
and Japan establish a timeline for the identification of
alternatives to the Henoko FRF plan, including the
reconsideration of existing military air bases and other
airport facilities in the area, in order to allow for prudent
and critical investments in the current Marine Corps Air
Station by both Governments.
With respect to the plan announced in the April 27th joint
statement, the committee has questions about the extent to
which the updated initiatives are guided by strategic concepts
and plans for force posture that are militarily effective,
operationally supportable, and fiscally and politically
sustainable. The committee also notes that the new distributed
laydown proposed for Marine Corps forces will require the
completion of a concept of operations, an analysis of logistics
requirements, and basing plans to establish and employ full
Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) capabilities at four
geographically dispersed locations in Okinawa, Guam, Australia,
and Hawaii. The committee is concerned that the agreement does
not include any formal timelines for budgeting or for
completion of the realignments. This uncertainty increases the
risk that a delay in investments or construction prolonged over
10 years or more will have a detrimental impact on the
readiness and operational capabilities of the MAGTFs in the
region. The committee also expects the independent assessment
to contribute to the review and discussion by the committee of
the proposed changes to the strategic framework for U.S. forces
in the region. Until the committee is provided details to
adequately assess the strategic impact, feasibility, and
affordability of these initiatives, the committee is unwilling
to authorize further obligations of funds for projects on Guam
in support of the relocation, to include investments proposed
for civilian facility and infrastructure requirements.
Also, the committee recognizes that some environmental
studies will be necessary to consider the effects of the new
plans for Guam and for Hawaii. These environmental studies will
inevitably take time, but must be expedited to the greatest
extent feasible so that the realignments can begin as soon as
practical. To this end, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure
that the environmental studies associated with the movement of
marines from Okinawa be given the highest priority within the
Department and that every effort be made to expedite these
studies, consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
As the realignment of U.S. forces in the Pacific Command
area of responsibility continues to be formalized through plans
and agreements with our allies, the committee should receive
regular updates from the Department of Defense on the process,
particularly with regard to costs, timelines, planning, and
logistics of this critical endeavor. Accordingly, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives receive regular updates, at least once every 3
months, if not more often, on the cost and timelines associated
with the realignment of marines on Okinawa and on the
environmental planning process for Guam, Australia, and Hawaii.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $388.2 million for military construction and $581.7 million
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$355.2 billion for military construction and $581.7 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2013.
The committee notes that the budget request for the Air
Force for military construction is considerably reduced this
fiscal year. The Air Force has described this reduction as a
`strategic pause' in military construction. The committee is
concerned that this reallocation of budget authority may
endanger the Air Force's ability to meet future military
construction requirements.
The budget requests $161.0 million for the second increment
of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) Replacement Facility
at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. The committee is concerned
that initial contractor bids received for the construction of
this facility far exceeded the government's cost estimate and
the congressional authorization of $564.0 million.
The committee notes that in an era of budget austerity, the
Department of Defense must ensure that only the most critical
facility requirements needed to carry out the current missions
are supported in new headquarters facilities. As the Department
receives new bids for this facility, the committee is concerned
that no critical facility requirements for U.S. STRATCOM be
eliminated and that no costs are deferred to other funding
streams; therefore, the committee directs the Department to
submit an updated DD-1391 form, along with current manning
requirements for the facility, that captures the complete and
usable project to be awarded for the amount previously
authorized by Congress.
The committee further notes that the Department will be
unable to obligate and expend the full amount of the budget
request and therefore recommends a $33.0 million reduction.
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 2013.
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 2013. It 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 2013 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 2013 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 2010 projects (sec.
2305)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2010 authorization for two projects until October
1, 2013, or the date of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $3.5 billion for military construction for the defense
agencies, $150.0 million for energy conservation projects,
$151.0 million for chemical demilitarization construction, and
$54.0 million for family housing for the defense agencies, and
the Family Housing Improvement Fund for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$3.4 billion for military construction, $150.0 million for
energy conservation projects, $151.0 million for chemical
demilitarization construction, and $54.2 million for family
housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2013.
The budget requests $300.5 million for the second increment
of the High Performance Computing Center at Fort Meade,
Maryland. The committee understands that the National Security
Agency (NSA) will be unable to obligate and expend the full
amount of the budget request and therefore recommends a $75.0
million reduction.
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization provided last year for this project. The
committee required the NSA to validate the cost of the project.
The original budget request for the project was $860.5 million.
This year's request shows a reduction of approximately $68.3
million in the project's value with no degradation in final
performance or schedule.
The budget requests $7.0 million for Base Installation
Access/Appearance Plan at Bethesda Naval Hospital, Maryland.
The supporting budget documents show that this requirement
should be met with operations and maintenance funds and not
military construction funds; therefore, the committee
recommends this project be eliminated.
The budget requests $207.4 million for the fourth increment
of the Hospital Replacement at Fort Bliss, Texas. The committee
understands that the Department will be unable to obligate and
expend the full amount of the budget request and therefore
recommends a $100.0 million reduction.
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 2013. 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 2013 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.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2010 project (sec.
2404)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization for a project until October 1, 2013, or the date
of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later. This
extension was requested by the Department of Defense.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2012 project
(sec. 2405)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
table in section 2401(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public
Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1672), relating to Fort Meade, Maryland,
by striking ``$29,640,000'' and inserting ``$792,200,000.''
Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project
(sec. 2406)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
an Upgrade Fuel Pipeline at Andersen Air Force Base with
certain limitations.
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 2013. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 1997 project
(sec. 2412)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
table in section 2401(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division B of Public
Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2775), as amended.
Item of Special Interest
Excess overseas facilities for defense agencies
The committee notes that the Department of Defense is in
the process of reviewing U.S. military force posture in Europe
and Asia with the intent of consolidating and aligning military
forces to meet national security objectives in a fiscally
constrained environment.
The committee further notes that most of the attention and
efforts to date have centered on the status and realignment of
forces of the military departments even though the 16 major
defense agencies of the Department maintain significant numbers
of facilities and personnel overseas. The committee believes
that a request by the Department of Defense for the authority
to conduct a domestic Base Realignment and Closure round must
be preceded by a comprehensive evaluation of opportunities to
obtain efficiencies through the consolidation of the overseas
operations of defense agencies and possible relocation back to
the United States.
Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, as the Chief Management Officer of the Department, to
evaluate the feasibility and cost-savings that may be realized
by closing overseas facilities and consolidating operations of
the 16 defense agencies to existing facilities and
installations within the United States.
The committee further directs the Deputy Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than February 1, 2013, on the results of
the review, including the projected personnel realignments,
facilities maintenance, and facilities modernization costs and
savings that could be achieved by consolidating overseas
operations and possibly relocating those functions to
facilities located in the United States.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $254.2 million for military construction in
fiscal year 2013 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
facilities.
The committee recommends a total of $254.2 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 $254.2 million for the United States'
contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
Investment Program for fiscal year 2013.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $1.0 billion for military construction in
fiscal year 2013 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 2013. 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 2013. 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 2013. 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 2013. 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 2013. 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 2013 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
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2009 project (sec.
2611)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2009 authorization for a project until October 1,
2013, or the date of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2010 projects (sec.
2612)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
fiscal year 2010 authorization for three projects until October
1, 2013, or the date of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later.
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
Summary and explanation of tables
The budget request included $349.3 million for the ongoing
cost of environmental remediation and other activities
necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993,
and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds.
In addition, the budget requested an authorization of
appropriations of $126.7 million for implementation of the 2005
BRAC round.
The committee recommends funding at these levels.
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure
activities funded through Department of Defense base closure
account 1990 (sec. 2701)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for ongoing activities that
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991,
1993, and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure rounds.
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure
activities funded through Department of Defense base closure
account 2005 (sec. 2702)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for military construction projects for fiscal
year 2013 that are required to implement the decisions of the
2005 Base Realignment and Closure round. The table included in
this title of the report lists the specific amounts authorized
at each location.
Technical amendments to section 2702 of fiscal year 2012 Act (sec.
2703)
The committee recommends a provision that would make a
technical amendment and a conforming amendment to section 2702
of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012 (division B of Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1681).
Criteria for decisions involving certain base closure and realignment
activities (sec. 2704)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Comptroller General to develop objective criteria to be used by
the Department of Defense to make decisions relating to
realignments of units employed at military installations that
are not currently covered by section 2687 of title 10, United
States Code.
The provision would also include a 1-year moratorium on
implementing any realignment that would result in a military
installation covered under section 2687 to no longer be covered
by section 2687. This moratorium could be waived by the
Secretary of Defense if he certifies that the action is in the
national security interests of the United States.
Item of Special Interest
Government Accountability Office review of the systems and processes
that the Department uses to identify the extent to which bases
or facilities are excess to needs
The Department of Defense (DOD) has requested authorization
for base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds in 2013 and
2015. In justifying this request, the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Installations and Environment, Dorothy Robyn,
testified in March 2012, that ``given the cost of our
installation infrastructure, we cannot afford to maintain
excess capacity. Parametric techniques used to analyze various
capacity measures in 2004 indicated that the Department had 24
percent excess capacity overall relative to force structure
plans developed by the Joint Staff. . . . Because BRAC 2005
eliminated only about three percent of the Department's
capacity, we believe we have significant excess capacity
today.''
The committee is concerned about the adequacy of the
processes that DOD uses to determine excess infrastructure
capacity based on a variety of conflicting statements from
senior departmental officials.
Senior Army officials have been quoted as stating that the
Army has no interest in another BRAC round. Yet, recent
briefings to the committee suggest that the Army does have
excess capacity.
Senior Air Force officers have been quoted as saying that
the Air Force has too many bases thus suggesting the need for a
BRAC round and yet the Service did not propose many significant
base closures when it had the authority to propose such
closures in BRAC 2005.
A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
raises additional questions about the extent to which DOD
actually knows how much excess capacity exists. Specifically,
in Excess Facilities: DOD Needs More Complete Information and a
Strategy to Guide Its Future Disposal Efforts (GAO-11-814) the
GAO reported that the Air Force reported a utilization rate of
0 percent for 22,563 buildings that were in an active status,
DOD reported utilization rates for 32,999 facilities to the
Federal Real Property Profile even though DOD's database which
is the authoritative source of this information had no
utilization information for these facilities, and DOD officials
acknowledged an inability to accurately identify vacant and
underutilized real property.
Finally, the GAO reported in Defense Infrastructure: Army
Needs to Improve Its Facility Planning Systems to Better
Support Installations Experiencing Significant Growth (GAO-10-
602) that the Army planned to spend about $31.0 billion through
fiscal year 2015 to meet facility needs but would still have
shortages of some types of facilities thus raising questions
about whether closing bases is the right strategy for coping
with shortages of facilities.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a
review of the systems and processes that DOD uses to identify
the extent to which bases or facilities are excess to needs.
This review shall address the following:
(1) How DOD identifies bases or other infrastructure
that are excess to its needs;
(2) How well integrated DOD's force structure
planning processes are with its base infrastructure
planning processes;
(3) To what extent concerns raised in prior GAO
reports about the ability of DOD to accurately identify
its utilization of bases and facilities have been
addressed; and
(4) Any additional matters that the Comptroller
General determines to be relevant.
The Comptroller General shall report the results of his
study to the congressional defense committees by May 7, 2013.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Authorized cost and scope variations (sec. 2801)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the
authorizations for scope variations in military construction
and family housing projects.
The committee is extremely concerned by recent discoveries
that contracts for the construction of Department of Defense
(DOD) facilities resulted in military construction projects
that exceeded the scope of work authorized by Congress. The
committee was notified on April 30, 2012, that nine Army
National Guard projects in various states of construction would
result in facilities that will exceed the size specifically
authorized by Congress in past National Defense Authorization
Acts. Army National Guard representatives attributed the
violations to ``human error'' and requested immediate
legislative action to authorize the higher scope in order to
preclude delays to the construction of the facilities.
In addition, the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense (DODIG) released a report on February 27, 2012, titled
''Guidance Needed to Prevent Military Construction Projects
From Exceeding the Approved Scope of Work (Report No. DODIG-
2012-057)'' which found that the design process for three
military construction projects did not result in U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and Air Force Center for Engineering and the
Environment (AFCEE) officials constructing facilities in
accordance with facility sizes on the congressional request for
authorization. Additionally, AFCEE officials improperly
authorized the construction of facilities for one project,
because they did not conduct scope verifications and perform
proper contract administration. As a result, AFCEE officials
improperly authorized the expenditure of at least $3.3 million.
The DODIG concluded that ``this occurred because the scope
of work variations permissible by section 2853, title 10,
United States Code, from the congressional request for
authorization are unclear and inconsistently applied.'' As a
result, Department of Defense officials do not have assurances
that military construction projects are built consistent with
congressional intent and in accordance with legislative
requirements.
The committee expects that the Department of Defense has
guidance and regulations in place to ensure compliance with
military construction statutes and to ensure hundreds of
military construction projects authorized each year are carried
out consistent with congressional intent. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to incorporate the
clarifications of section 2853 imposed by this provision into
current Department regulations and to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2013,
describing clear, concise, and comprehensive guidance and
processes established with the Department to preclude any human
errors from resulting in a violation of law.
Comptroller General report on in-kind payments (sec. 2802)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report on
the construction or renovation of Department of Defense
facilities with in-kind payments.
Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and
maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas
outside the United States (sec. 2803)
The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize
contingency contracting authority in certain areas outside the
United States for one more year.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Authority to accept as consideration for leases of non-excess property
of military departments and defense agencies real property
interests and natural resource management services related to
agreements to limit encroachment (sec. 2811)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to allow the
authorities available under the enhanced use lease program to
be used to develop buffer areas around military installations
to help prevent land uses that are incompatible with military
operations and to preserve the environment under the Readiness
and Environmental Protection Initiative codified in section
2684a of title 10, United States Code.
Clarification of parties with whom Department of Defense may conduct
exchanges of real property at military installations (sec.
2812)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
with whom the Department of Defense may conduct exchanges of
real property at military installations.
Subtitle C--Energy Security
Guidance on financing for renewable energy projects (sec. 2821)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense to issue guidance for financing renewable
energy projects.
Continuation of limitation on use of funds for Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) gold or platinum certification
(sec. 2822)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
prohibition on the use of funds for Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) gold or platinum certification
until 6 months after the report required in section 2830(b)(1)
of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012 (division B of Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1695) is
submitted.
Prohibition on biofuel refinery construction (sec. 2823)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense from entering into a contract to
plan, design, or construct a biofuel refinery or any other
facility or infrastructure used to refine biofuels unless such
planning, design, or construction is specifically authorized by
law.
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances
Land conveyance, local training area for Browning Army Reserve Center,
Utah (sec. 2831)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the conveyance of real property at Browning Army Reserve
Center, Utah.
Use of proceeds, land conveyance, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida (sec.
2832)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorities for use of proceeds of a land conveyance at Tyndall
Air Force Base, Florida.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Clarification of authority of Secretary to assist with development of
public infrastructure in connection with the establishment or
expansion of a military installation (sec. 2841)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
specific authorization of any grant, cooperative agreement, or
supplement of funds available under federal programs
administered by agencies other than the Department of Defense
that result in the development of public infrastructure.
Petersburg National Battlefield boundary modification (sec. 2842)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
boundary of the Petersburg National Battlefield.
Congressional notification with respect to oversight and maintenance of
base cemeteries following closure of overseas military
installations (sec. 2843)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
notification with respect to oversight and maintenance of base
cemeteries following the closure of overseas military
installations.
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 for fiscal year
2013, 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 $17.9 billion. Of the total amount requested:
(1) $11.6 billion is for NNSA, of which:
(a) $7.6 billion is for weapons activities;
(b) $2.5 billion is for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities;
(c) $1.1 billion is for naval reactors; and
(d) $411.3 million is for the Office of the
Administrator;
(2) $5.5 billion is for defense environmental
cleanup; and
(3) $830.7 million is for other defense activities.
The committee recommends $17.4 billion for atomic energy
defense activities. Of the amounts authorized, the committee
recommends:
(1) $11.5 billion for NNSA, of which;
(a) $7.6 billion is for weapons activities;
(b) $2.5 billion is for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities;
(c) $1.2 billion is for naval reactors; and
(d) $386.3 million is for the Office of the
Administrator;
(2) $5.0 billion for defense environmental cleanup
activities; and
(3) $828.7 million for other defense activities.
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
total of $11.5 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in
fiscal year 2013 for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) to carry out programs necessary to
national security.
Weapons activities
The committee recommends $7.6 billion for weapons
activities.
The committee recommends funding for these programs as
follows: $2.1 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.7 billion
for campaigns; $2.2 billion for readiness in the technical base
and facilities; $219.4 million for the secure transportation
asset; $247.6 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident
response; $88.3 million for site stewardship; $643.3 million
for safeguards and security; and $10.0 million for national
security applications.
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 $2.1 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 2013, the W-
76 program was lowered by some $79,000,000 relative to fiscal
year 2013 budgetary estimates in the fiscal year 2012 budget
submission in order to pay for the increased costs of the B-61
refurbishment. The reduced funding of the W-76 has led to a
change in the mix of active verses hedge warheads delivered to
the Navy by the Pantex plant. The result is that now only
active warheads are to be delivered with hedge warheads in the
out years after the submarine fleet has been refurbished.
Testimony before the committee had indicated that the Navy,
while concerned with this new delivery schedule, can
accommodate the increased risk to the submarine fleet. It is
the committee's understanding that for fiscal year 2013, the
NNSA has actually underfunded the W-76 program such that it
cannot even deliver the needed active warheads to the submarine
fleet. After inquiries to the NNSA on which adjustments to
budget lines must be made to accommodate for this error, the
committee is told that the NNSA will not know what to adjust
until they have a full cost estimate of the B-61 phase 2A study
completed this summer, leading to a cascade of re-programming
requests to Congress, all the while the Navy submarine fleet is
left uncertain if this error will affect their home port
maintenance schedules. The committee recommends an increase of
$25,000,000 to the W-76 Directed Stockpile line taken from the
NNSA Office of the Administrator line, which the committee
understands is to be used for network integration.
Campaigns
The committee recommends $1.8 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), which is
still several orders of magnitude below the stated energy level
to achieve it. The committee recognizes that the NIF has
numerous other stockpile, defense related and non-defense
related, missions and that important research remains to be
done in these other areas. However, none rise to the level as
understanding the physics of ignition for stockpile
stewardship. The NNSA must strike a careful balance of ensuring
there is still focus on this objective within the limited
funding allocated for the machine and must not let lack of
achieving ignition in the short-term cause long-term drifting
to other missions to justify the funding.
The committee recognizes the importance of having a
domestic source for enriched uranium using U.S. technology to
meet our Nation's future tritium requirements to ensure the
safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal consistent
with the fiscal year 2013 budget request.
The 2012 Stockpile Stewardship and Management plan defines
the elements of the stockpile stewardship program including the
careful planning that goes into designing and developing the
science, technology, and engineering (STE) program. The STE
program provides the physics based understanding needed to
predict performance of various weapons components to support
the life extension and surveillance programs. As stated in the
report: ``these [STE capabilities] determine what can be
engineered and the spectrum of changes that can be confidently
assessed without UGT [underground testing.]'' Two of the key
elements of the STE program are the Predictive Capability
Framework (PCF) and the Component Maturation Framework (CMF).
Each of these frameworks have a detailed, complementary 15-year
plan. The PCF plan carefully balances the four key components
of weapons assessment with the development of experimental and
computation capabilities. The CMF develops the components
needed for life extension based on the development of the
knowledge and predicative capabilities derived from the PCF. As
the plan states: ``These strategies are coupled because the CMF
includes the maturation plans for development and production of
stockpile sustainment components. PCF provides the tools and
capabilities for establishing the environments that those
components will witness and the qualification of those
components in meeting performance specifications.''
Readiness in the technical base
The committee recommends $2.4 billion for 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 is concerned about the additional increase of
$150,000,000 added to the budget for replacing building 9212 at
the Y-12 plant. The committee is fully supportive of replacing
building 9212 and building a Uranium Processing Facility.
However, the committee understands that the Y-12 plant was not
formally notified of the increase until February 13, 2012, the
same day the deferral of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Replacement building was announced to Los Alamos. The way the
NNSA announced this decision leads the committee to believe
that this additional funding was made in haste. The structure
of the contract to build the facility is now changing from
integrated product design leading to final construction, to one
of ``design build'' where the building is built first to show
progress and then subcontracts are let from the main contractor
to back fill the equipment and processes, which are inherently
complicated. The committee notes that the ``design build''
concept was used at the Waste Treatment Project at Hanford, and
is considered one of the largest cost overruns in the
Department of Energy's history. Not more than $190,000,000 may
be spent on project 06-D-141 (the amount identified for fiscal
year 2013 in the fiscal year 2012 budget submission) until the
NNSA reaches a 90-percent engineering design phase and submits
to the congressional defense committees CD-2 baseline
information and the structure of the contract to build and
equip the Uranium Processing Facility.
With the proposed cancellation of the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) building, the NNSA has
proposed an alternative plutonium strategy. This alternative
strategy concerns the committee.
A good rule of thumb with plutonium is that its operations
are centralized in one place. The committee's understanding is
that the NNSA will de-inventory the Plutonium Facility (PF)-4
building at Los Alamos where plutonium operations occur and
store the plutonium at the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) at
the Nevada National Security Site, which is 663 miles and more
than 10 hours away from the PF-4. The committee understands
that DAF needs upgrades to its safety systems for a material
that is inherently exothermic in air. The committee understands
that plutonium testing and operations at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory will be reinstated--after the NNSA has told
Congress they have saved money by lowering the security posture
there and told the local communities that they have de-
inventoried the laboratory of plutonium. The committee
understands that the NNSA is increasing the quantity of
plutonium at the Radiological Laboratory Office Building
(RLOUB) at Los Alamos, which is designed for small amounts of
plutonium for radio-chemistry purposes (up to 26 grams) and
questions what, if anything, increasing the quantity at RLOUB
for analytical chemistry purposes gives towards helping the
process flow issues inside PF-4 at Los Alamos where large
quantities (kilograms) of plutonium are handled. There is a
large excavation next to PF-4 where the CMRR Nuclear Facility
(CMRR-NF) was to be built, the committee would like to know how
the NNSA plans to maintain such a large excavation next to PF-4
when it plans to defer CMRR-NF ``for at least 5 years''.
Finally there is the issue of a tunnel connecting PF-4 to
RLOUB, which must go past the large excavation for the CMRR-NF
to help expedite the flow of small samples. This tunnel is
larger than that from CMRR-NF to PF-4. The committee's
understanding is the deferral of CMRR-NF will lead to in some
cases a loss of materials characterization and materials
compatibility tests for larger test samples of plutonium that
cannot be duplicated elsewhere. Some of these capabilities,
such as crystal growth, may be impossible to recreate
elsewhere.
Once it learned of the proposed cancellation, the committee
asked the Department of Defense (DOD) if the requirement for
50-80 pits a year was still valid and was told it was. How will
transporting plutonium across the U.S. to different NNSA
facilities be any more safe and secure and cost less than CMRR-
NF adjacent to PF-4? The committee also understands that
without CMRR-NF, no plan exists for meeting the DOD
requirements.
The committee finds that the alternative plutonium strategy
could cost upwards of $1.0 billion to delay the CMRR-NF by ``at
least 5 years'' resulting if built, a 25-30 percent increase in
the CMRR-NF cost or about another $2.0 billion. Unknown is the
cost to re-start the CMRR-NF project or how the regulatory
structure 5 or more years from now will have changed. The net
result of this deferral is a cost escalation of some $3.0
billion to the taxpayer with even more uncertainty on the
Nation's plutonium strategy much less ensuring Los Alamos can
retain the unique expertise and scientists it has had since the
Manhattan Project to handle this vital national mission. If
CMRR-NF is not built, the alternative plutonium strategy will
simply shift increased pit costs from not using a single
facility into future life extension programs in the out years.
Given the magnitude of the consequences of the alternative
plutonium proposal by the NNSA, the committee directs the
Government Accountability Office, on an expedited basis, to
review the NNSA's proposed plutonium strategy to determine
relative to the CMRR-NF whether (1) it is safer than if CMRR-NF
were started on its original schedule and if not, what are the
added risks to public health and safety, (2) what is the added
cost in addition to the deferral of CMRR-NF, especially to
future life extension programs, (3) what burden will be placed
on PF-4 in terms of process flow and ability to meet the DOD
requirement (as compared to starting CMRR-NF on its original
schedule), (4) what is the estimated cost and time of building
an entirely new facility accomplishing both the functions of
CMRR-NF and PF-4 at the least costly location in the NNSA
complex, and (5) what would be the impact on the plutonium
science mission at Los Alamos. The committee requests this
study no later than January 31, 2013.
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 $219.4 million for the secure
transportation asset (STA). The secure transportation asset is
responsible for the transportation of nuclear weapons, weapons
materials, and components, and other materials requiring safe
and secure transport. If the STA resumes consideration of a
third-party leasing option, the committee expects STA to fully
notify Congress of such arrangements in advance of executing
any leases.
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response
The committee recommends $247.6 million for nuclear
counterterrorism incident response.
Site stewardship
The committee recommends $90.0 million for site
stewardship.
Safeguards and security
The committee recommends $643.3 million for safeguards and
security.
National security applications
The committee recommends $10.0 million for national
security applications.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs
The committee recommends $2.6 billion for the Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation program. The NNSA has management and
oversight responsibility for the nuclear nonproliferation
programs at the DOE.
The committee recommends funding for these programs as
follows: $548.2 million for nonproliferation and verification
research and development (R&D), which includes $150,000 for
urnanium enrichment R&D; $150.1 million for nonproliferation
and international security; $311.0 million for international
nuclear materials production and cooperation; $92.3 million for
fissile materials disposition; and $466.0 million for the
global threat reduction initiative.
Nonproliferation and verification research and development
The committee recommends $548.2 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
no later than January 31, 2013.
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 the Department of Defense.
Nonproliferation and international security
The committee recommends $150.1 million for
nonproliferation and international security. The committee
recommends bringing the Global Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention program in Russia to a close at the end of 2012.
International nuclear materials protection and cooperation
The committee recommends $311.0 million for international
nuclear materials protection and cooperation.
Fissile materials disposition
The committee recommends $921.3 million for fissile
materials disposition. This fissile materials disposition
program converts excess weapons grade plutonium to mixed oxide
(MOX) fuel for use in commercial power reactors. The United
States and Russia have signed an agreement 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. The committee has learned of another
adjustment to the baseline of this program due in the summer of
2012, which has already grown substantially over the past 13
years, in addition to the cancellation of the feedstock
facility after $700,000,000 has been spent in various stages of
design. The committee expects to be fully informed of this
baseline adjustment. The committee directs the NNSA to report
to the congressional defense committees a roadmap over the life
of the program on how the NNSA will supply the 34 metric tons
of feedstock to the MOX facility noting the capacity and
lifetime of each facility to prepare feedstock with a detailed
cost estimate in the first 15-year window. The report must take
into account recent decisions at the PF-4 facility and CMRR-NF.
This report is due no later than December 31, 2012. The
committee also understands the MOX facility is before the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for license. The committee
directs the development of a quarterly update reporting system
be established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to
the congressional defense committees, with the first report due
September 30, 2012, advising the committees on the status of
license review as well as its fuel forms, identifying issues of
concern to the NRC. The committee also understands the
estimated operating costs for the MOX facility are increasing
and directs the NNSA report to the congressional defense
committees by July 30, 2012, a historical review of the
estimated operating costs of the MOX facility to understand the
cost growth and trend.
Global threat reduction initiative
The committee recommends $566.0 million for the global
threat reduction initiative. 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.
Naval reactors
The committee recommends $1.1 billion for naval reactors,
including a $37.9 million increase above the budget request for
the Ohio-class replacement reactor program. This program was
decreased by $70.0 million relative to the fiscal year 2012
budget projection for fiscal year 2013. The committee notes
that the Naval Reactors program is under strong pressure in the
5-year budget profile to meet its design specifications for the
Ohio-class replacement reactor and recommends that the NNSA
support any necessary changes needed to the Ohio-class reactor
replacement program to ensure it is properly synchronized with
the main submarine program which has slipped by 2 years. The
committee remains concerned by the 2-year delay of the Ohio-
class replacement program, and directs Naval Reactors to
deviate as little as possible from the schedule identified in
the fiscal year 2012 budget. The committee understands the
replacement for the Idaho fuel cooling pool has slipped by 2
years as well and requests no later than July 31, 2012, a
status update on this effort.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
three new plant projects for the Department of Energy, Naval
Reactors that are in the fiscal year 2013 budget request. The
first project, 13-D-903, at the Kesselring Site, West Milton,
New York, will build a staff building for handling the
increased number of trainees at the Kesselring Site Prototype
Training Reactor. The second project, 13-D-904, will build
additional radiological workspace for the overhaul of the
Prototype Training Reactor at the Kesselring Site. The third
project, 13-D-905, will develop a low level waste disposal site
at the Idaho National Laboratory where Naval Reactors examine
spent naval fuel.
Office of the Administrator
The committee recommends $386.3 million for the Office of
the Administrator, this represents a $25,000,000 decrease due
to transfer of funds to the weapons activities account for
information technology and networks. An equivalent amount of
funding ($25,000,000) was then added back into the
Administrator's account leading to in-effect a double counting.
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$5.0 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at
the Department of Energy (DOE) but does not as in past years,
include the $463,000,000 request for the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund (section 1801 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-703), as amended)
whose authorization expired in 2007. The fiscal year 2013
budget assumption for the $463,000,000 requires legislation to
be adopted outside the jurisdiction of this committee. 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.
Savannah River Site
The committee recommends $1.2 billion for the Savannah
River Site. The committee commends the National Nuclear
Security Administration 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. Past experience has shown that the H-Canyon will be
needed as new waste streams evolve and as the National Nuclear
Security Administration continues to receive returned highly
enriched uranium research reactor fuels. The committee requests
a 10-year roadmap for the H-Canyon usage due no later than
January 31, 2013.
Waste Treatment Plant
The committee continues to follow the progress at the Waste
Treatment Plant at the DOE Hanford Site in Richland,
Washington. The August 2011 review of the project found that it
will likely exceed by $900,000,000 the current total cost
estimate of $12.3 billion and now that it is nearing initial
operations, attention should be turned towards integration of
the tank farms and the plant itself as well as adjusting
staffing towards operational personnel. The report recommended
a $350,000,000 phased CD-4 approach. The committee directs the
Department of Energy to provide to the congressional defense
committees the outcome of this phased CD-4 approach no later
than July 30, 2012, of efforts to integrate the tank farm and
waste treatment plant contracts as well as any change to the
total baseline cost of the project.
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$828.7 million for other defense activities. The committee
recommends $245.5 million for health and safety; $188.6 million
for security; $177.9 million for Legacy Management; $118.8
million for departmental administration; and $4.8 million for
the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Replacement project for Chemistry and Metallurgy Research building, Los
Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 3111)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to construct a building
to replace the functions of the existing Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research building at Los Alamos National Laboratory
associated with Department of Energy (DOE) Hazard Category 2
special nuclear material operations.
The committee is strongly concerned with the budget
proposal to defer ``by at least 5 years'' the replacement
project for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement
Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) building at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, New Mexico.
A deferral ``for at least 5 years'' appears to be a
cancellation. Based on the analysis the committee has received
to date, it appears that such a cancellation would have an
adverse impact on nuclear modernization programs.
The 2009 report ``America's Strategic Posture'', chaired by
former Secretaries of Defense, William Perry and James
Schlesinger, recognized the significance of the CMRR project
not because it was tied to a military number of pits but
because it ``makes a direct contribution to the intellectual
infrastructure that is in immediate danger of attrition''. They
wisely noted that ``because the future size of the stockpile is
uncertain, projects that are independent of the stockpile size
should take priority. The uranium production facility's
(building 9212 at Y-12) size is influenced by stockpile size .
. . . The Los Alamos plutonium facility is required independent
of stockpile size.'' They go further stating that, ``These
considerations lead the commission to the conclusion that, if
priority must be given, the Los Alamos plutonium facility
should receive it.'' The point is that while today we are
focused on CMRR-NF because the Department of Defense (DOD)
states it has a pit need in the range of 50-80 by 2025, the
fundamental reason CMRR-NF is needed is to maintain our
Nation's ability to conduct continuous research with kilogram
quantities of plutonium. A DOE Hazard Category 2 facility, such
as CMRR-NF, was planned to be necessary to make a wide range of
bulk mechanical measurements on pit behavior to ensure that
even as pit aging occurs, we can be sure that the stockpile
will continue to be safe, secure, and militarily effective.
In a February 2, 2011, message from the President to the
Senate on the New START Treaty, the President stated that he
intends to ``(a) accelerate to the extent possible, the design
and engineering phase of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Replacement (CMRR) building and the Uranium Processing Facility
(UPF); and (b) request full funding, including on a multi-year
basis as appropriate, for the CMRR building and the UPF upon
completion of the design and engineering phase for such
facilities.''
The committee believes that the linkage between nuclear
modernization and the New START Treaty's implementation is
clearly established.
In 2010, the Department of Defense and the Department of
Energy signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) concerning
modernization of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure. In this MOA,
DOD agreed to work with the Office of Management and Budget to
transfer budget authority for NNSA's nuclear weapons and Naval
Reactor programs. DOE agreed to use this transferred budget
authority to supplement NNSA funding for among other things
completing the design and beginning construction of the CMRR-NF
facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The committee
understands that DOD is providing the resources agreed to under
the MOA and commends DOD for its commitment to the
modernization of the nuclear weapons complex. The committee is
disappointed in DOE's failure to comply with its previously
agreed to obligations, and directs NNSA to provide the
committee by September 30, 2012, a full accounting of the
budget authority DOD is giving to DOE and a detailed
description at the account level of the NNSA programs directly
impacted through the transfer of DOD's budget authority.
The committee authorizes $150.0 million of the amounts
appropriated in fiscal year 2013 for the construction of the
CMRR-NF facility and prohibits NNSA from reducing amounts
authorized and appropriated for directed stockpile work, naval
reactors, or Facility Project 06-D-141, Project Engineering &
Design, Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12 National Security
Complex, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for this purpose.
The committee expresses concern with the overall projected
cost of the CMRR-NF facility and therefore directs that the
facility meet the requirements identified in the April 2010 MOA
regarding capabilities but that funding for the facility shall
not exceed $3.7 billion. The practicability of implementing the
design and construction of the facility shall focus on the
costs and benefits as well as technical and economic
feasibility of every major design characteristic that drives
cost. The committee stresses the importance of the
affordability of CMRR and strongly believes that a $3.7 billion
cost ceiling is sufficient. The committee notes that One World
Trade Center in New York City, which when complete will be the
tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, is estimated to
cost $3.9 billion. The committee believes both CMRR-NF and the
UPF at Y-12 can be built affordably and directs the
administration to achieve the cost savings necessary, so that
the cost of CMRR-NF does not exceed the statutorily imposed
cost ceiling.
The committee is disappointed in the lack of transparency
displayed by NNSA in its fiscal year 2013 budget deliberation
process. It is evident that the level of rigor and due
diligence necessary for a proposal as significant as the
proposed deferral of CMRR-NF did not take place between NNSA
and the national security laboratories, NNSA and the Department
of Defense, and NNSA and Congress. Not until after the budget
was released did NNSA seek input from the national laboratories
on the cost and practicality of employing a new plutonium
strategy. Furthermore, in testimony before the Senate Committee
on Armed Services, General Robert Kehler, the Commander of U.S.
Strategic Command testified that NNSA's fiscal year 2013 budget
concerned him. According to General Kehler's testimony, ``the
thing that concerns me the most is our continued investment in
the weapons complex. And so the issue with CMRR-NF does concern
me.''
Elsewhere in this bill, the committee proposes to
strengthen the oversight performed by the Nuclear Weapons
Council (NWC). That provision would require the NWC to certify
that the budget request meets nuclear stockpile and stockpile
stewardship program requirements and seeks to prevent future
instances where the Department of Defense and the Commander of
U.S. Strategic Command are presented a budget that does not
meet strategic requirements or national policy.
Submittal to Congress of selected acquisition reports and independent
cost estimates on nuclear weapon systems undergoing life
extension (sec. 3112)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
National Nuclear Security Administration to provide selected
acquisition reports on each nuclear weapon system undergoing
life extension. The reports shall be based on existing
provisions in section 2432 of title 10, United States Code. The
provision also recommends independent cost estimates for
nuclear weapons undergoing life extension at the completion of
phase 6.2A and before entering Phase 6.5, first production.
Two year extension of schedule for disposition of weapons-usable
plutonium at Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina (sec.
3113)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 4306 of the Atomic Defense Energy Act (50 U.S.C. 2566)
to extend the dates at which the Department of Energy must pay
the State of South Carolina economic impact and assistance
funds by 2 years so that it must be able to produce 1 metric
ton of Mixed Oxide fuel by January 1, 2014, and 34 metric tons
by January 1, 2021.
Program on science engagement for nonproliferation (sec. 3114)
The committee proposes a provision that would authorize a
program for scientific engagement of U.S. scientists with
scientists in countries of concern with respect to
nonproliferation. Such a program could bring insight and
transparency into the ability of a country to adhere to
international nonproliferation norms. Several conditions are
placed on this program before any expenditure of funds: (1) a
nonproliferation threat assessment of the country by the
Director of National Intelligence; (2) clear metrics for
success so that the program does not become stagnant in the
country of concern; and (3) rigorous accounting standards
approved by the Government Accountability Office to ensure that
there is clear oversight of the funds expended. Items (1) and
(2) must be performed again when the program transitions to
another country. This overall program must demonstrate that it
does not duplicate other nonproliferation efforts in the rest
of the Executive Branch through a report to Congress due within
180 days of enactment of this Act.
Repeal of requirement for annual update of Department of Energy defense
nuclear facilities workforce restructuring plan (sec. 3115)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal an
annual reporting requirement of section 4604 of the Atomic
Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 27074). Since fiscal year 2005,
the Department of Energy has neither requested nor received
funding for enhanced severance benefits and community
transition under section 4604. Given the absence of funding
there is no need for the annual reporting requirement.
Quarterly reports to Congress on financial balances for atomic energy
defense activities (sec. 3116)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Atomic Energy Defense Act (division D of Public Law 107-314) to
require the Secretary of Energy to provide to the congressional
defense committees quarterly obligation and expenditure rates
for atomic energy defense programs based on the control points
of the conference report accompanying the annual Energy and
Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This
provision would cover both the National Nuclear Security
Administration and the Department of Energy's Environmental
Management Office (former defense sites). The committee
understands that the Department currently provides these
reports to the Appropriations committees of the Senate and the
House of Representatives and requests access to that same level
of information necessary for effective oversight.
Transparency in contractor performance evaluations by the National
Nuclear Security Administration leading to award fees (sec.
3117)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
to publish to the maximum extent practicable the performance
evaluations developed by its site offices that result in award
fees to the contractor. The provision also requires that future
performance evaluations adhere to a common format so that
Congress and the public can compare these evaluations between
similar management contracts.
Expansion of authority to establish certain scientific, engineering,
and technical positions (sec. 3118)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3241 of the National Nuclear Security Act (50 U.S.C.
2441) by increasing the ability of the Administrator to hire up
to 700 contracting, scientific, engineering, and technical
positions under hiring authorities used by the former Atomic
Energy Commission (42 U.S.C. 2201(d)). This provision would
only provide for additional hiring flexibility and would not
result in an increase in the total number of authorized
employees. Such authorities are also used by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, which has been rated one of the best
places to work in the Federal Government.
Modification and extension of authority on acceptance of contributions
for acceleration of removal or security of fissile materials,
radiological materials, and related equipment at vulnerable
sites worldwide (sec. 3119)
The committee recommends a provision that would expand the
authority of the Secretary of Energy under section 3132(f) of
the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) for the Secretary to
accept contributions from international partners to all
programs within the National Nuclear Security Administration's
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program.
Cost containment for Y-12 Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12 National
Security Complex, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (sec. 3120)
The committee recommends a provision that would add
enhanced oversight of the Uranium Processing Facility
construction project by requiring separate and distinct
authorizations for each phase of the project.
The Uranium Processing Facility project was first proposed
as a formal construction project in the fiscal year 2006 budget
request of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
The ``preliminary'' estimate for the project at that time was
between $600,000,000 to $1,000,000,000. The cost estimate in
the fiscal year 2013 budget request is now $6,500,000,000, an
increase of at least 650 percent.
The committee understands that the project will now be
broken into three phases. The first phase involves replacing
Building 9212. The second phase involves replacing Buildings
9215 and 9998, which perform uranium metal working, machining,
and inspection. The third phase involves replacing Building
9204-2E, which performs radiography, assembly, disassembly, and
inspection of nuclear warhead components. The committee
understands that the final cost estimate, which is to be
completed in early 2013, will only be for replacing the
functions of Building 9212. Building 9212 was built during the
Manhattan Project and by all accounts needs to be replaced
given its poor condition and the critical functions it performs
in purifying and casting uranium components.
The committee understands the programmatic need for
breaking the project into three phases but is also concerned
about additional cost growth, even after accelerating the
project by adding an additional $150,000,000 to it for fiscal
year 2013.
The committee has changed the budget tables to reflect an
authorization of $340,000,000 for phase one of this project.
Out of concern for cost growth, the committee is putting a cap
on phase one at $4,200,000,000. The NNSA should expect similar
budgetary caps to appear when the committee ascertains the
projected cost of phases two and three, and will critically
examine any additional growth above the fiscal year 2013 total
project cost estimate of $6,500,000,000.
The committee requests quarterly updates from the General
Accountability Office (GAO) on all phases of the Uranium
Processing Facility construction project. The updates should
include, at a minimum, progress on adhering to cost projections
as well as meeting the requirements of section 2753 of title
50, United States Code, ``Notification of cost overruns for
certain Department of Energy Projects'', the status of the
technology readiness levels for equipment and processes that
will accompany each phase of the project, independent cost
estimates, the programmatic structure of the relationship
between the prime contractor and sub-contractors, and any other
issues that the GAO believes are important pertaining to the
project's requirements, cost, schedule, and technology
readiness levels.
Authority to restore certain formerly Restricted Data to the Restricted
Data category (sec. 3121)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 142 the Atomic Energy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2162)
to restore to the Restricted Data category certain information
that has been removed from that category pursuant to sections
142(d) and 142(e). This provision was at the request of the
Department of Energy. The data is currently treated as
classified information. The provision also makes technical
corrections to section 142(e) to account for the Director of
National Intelligence. The proposed provision would permit the
Department of Energy, in conjunction with the Department of
Defense or the Director of National Intelligence to restore
formerly Restricted Data to its original Restricted Data
category.
Subtitle C--Reports
Report on actions required for transition of regulation of non-nuclear
activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration to
other federal agencies (sec. 3131)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Energy submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on actions required to transition, to the
maximum extent practicable, the regulation of non-nuclear
operations of the National Nuclear Security Administration over
a period of 5 years to federal agencies other than the
Department of Energy (DOE). The provision would require the
transition plan be submitted to the congressional defense
committees not later than February 28, 2013.
The committee directs the Government Accountability Office
to concurrently report to the congressional defense committees
by February 28, 2013, those DOE regulations in section 851 of
title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, that are more
protective, comparable, or less protective, than those of
outside federal agencies.
The committee expects the Department to perform wide
outreach with the public, affected communities, and employees
of its facilities in developing this plan.
Report on consolidation of facilities of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (sec. 3132)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) to report to the congressional
defense committees no later than 180 days after enactment of
this Act, on the feasibility of consolidation in the National
Nuclear Security Administration Complex if excess facilities
exist and consolidation would reduce cost. If the NWC finds
further consolidation is feasible, the report shall recommend a
process for consolidation. No funds may be spent on phase CD-3
(start of construction) of the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research Replacement building, Department of Energy Project 04-
D-125 and the Uranium Processing Facility, 06-D-141 until such
report is transmitted to the congressional defense committees.
Regional radiological security zones (sec. 3133)
The committee proposes a provision that would have the
National Nuclear Security Administration prepare a report on
the feasibility of establishing radiological security zones on
a regional basis rather than on a country by country case as is
now done. The report should include the estimated costs of
establishing and monitoring such zones through centralized
monitoring centers. The report is due no later than 180 days
after date of enactment of this Act.
Report on legacy uranium mines (sec. 3134)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Energy to prepare a report on abandoned uranium
mines used by the U.S. atomic weapons program. The report is
due 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
Comptroller General of the United States review of projects carried out
by the Office of Environmental Management of the Department of
Energy pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
projects (sec. 3135)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) which requires the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct several
reviews of clean-up projects under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) carried out
by the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental
Management (EM) that would eliminate the 120-day status
briefings on project performances. Section 3134 required a
number of reviews by the GAO: (1) an initial review due 30 days
from the enactment of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 on the
criteria used by EM to select projects to be carried out under
ARRA along with a description of the process used to validate
the scope, cost, and schedule for these projects; (2) status
briefings on project performance 30 days after submission of
the first report and every 120 days thereafter until all EM
ARRA funds are expended; and (3) a capping report on the
implementation of all EM projects carried out under ARRA. GAO
would complete its ongoing engagement as well as the capping
report.
GAO completed the first review and has subsequently
completed eight status briefings. GAO is currently working on a
full engagement to report on project status, which will provide
the bulk of the information needed to complete the capping
report. At this point, EM is not likely to completely expend
ARRA funds until at least the end of fiscal year 2013.
Items of Special Interest
General Accountability Office Study of National Nuclear Security
Administration Cost Estimating Practices
The committee has found that the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) has been inconsistent in the application
of cost estimating practices on the B-61 gravity bomb program
and several other large projects such at the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility for Nuclear
Operations.
The committee directs the General Accountability Office to
conduct an audit of the cost estimating practices of the NNSA
with recommendations to bring the NNSA into compliance with
generally accepted cost estimating practices used for similar
projects. The report will be due March 1, 2013.
National Ignition Facility overhead structure
The committee has found that National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) National Ignition Facility (NIF) has been
using a different overhead rate from the rest of the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, which has caused a large dollar
impact when requested to be moved to a similar rate as the rest
of the lab.
The committee directs the NNSA to move the NIF to the
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities funding schedule in
the fiscal year 2014 budget documentation.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
The committee has found that there have been recent
attempts to consolidate the funding for the nuclear weapons
program's Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
outside the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs. Such
consolidation of the RTBF away from the line manager's
responsible for the weapons program is inconsistent with
principals of good management. The committee directs the
National Nuclear Security Administration to ensure that line
responsibility for the RTBF rest with the Deputy Administrator
for Defense Programs.
Acquisition corps
The committee has found that the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) suffers from a lack of consistent
standards for large program acquisition. The committee directs
the NNSA to report no later than January 30, 2013, on a plan to
develop a structure for acquisition personnel similar to that
in the Department of Defense in chapter 87 of title 10 United
States Code.
Plan for use of Office of Science facilities
The committee has found that the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) uses a wide range basic science
facilities operated by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office
of Science as part of its stockpile stewardship program. These
user facilities include the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne
National Laboratory, the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory and the Linac Coherent Light Source at the
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. Using DOE's state the art
user facilities is an excellent example of how the NNSA
maintains excellence in its science base while supporting
Department of Energy facilities as a whole. The committee
directs the NNSA to prepare a report to the congressional
defense committees a long-term plan for the use of current and
future Office of Science facilities such as the Facility for
Rare Isotope Beams and the National Synchrotron Light Source
relative to support the stockpile stewardship program.
Independence of the National Nuclear Security Administration
The committee has found that the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) is often burdened with extra
responsibilities assigned by the Secretary of Energy. The
committee requests that no later than January 30, 2013, the
Nuclear Weapons Council evaluate the semi-independent nature of
the NNSA as originally created in 1999 and report back to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives and Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and the House of Representatives on measures that can be taken
so that the NNSA operates according to its original legislative
intent.
Adherence to section 3114 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
Section 3114 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383)
titled ``Notification of cost overruns for certain Department
of Energy Projects'' (50 U.S.C. 2753) set up a series of cost
overrun features for life extension programs and construction
projects both in the National Nuclear Security Administration
and the Department of Energy Office of Environmental
Management. To date, there has been no reporting to the
committee on the efforts of the Department of Energy response
to this legal requirement.
No later than January 31, 2013, the Secretary of Energy
shall submit a report to Congress outlining the status of
programs affected by this provision of law.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Authorization (sec. 3201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$29,415,000 for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, an
increase of $385,000 above the fiscal year 2012 funding level.
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
bill, 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 2013 budget request and shows 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.
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
001 UTILITY F/W AIRCRAFT.............. 2 18,639 2 18,639
002 C-12 CARGO AIRPLANE............... 0 0
003 MQ-1 UAV.......................... 19 518,088 19 518,088
004 RQ-11 (RAVEN)..................... 234 25,798 234 25,798
005 BCT UNMANNED AERIAL VEH (UAVS) 0 0
INCR 1.
ROTARY
006 HELICOPTER, LIGHT UTILITY (LUH)... 34 271,983 34 271,983
007 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN..... 40 577,115 40 577,115
008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 107,707 107,707
009 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD. 8 153,993 8 153,993
010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 146,121 146,121
011 AH-64 BLOCK II/WRA................ 0 0
012 KIOWA WARRIOR (OH-58F) WRA........ 0 0
013 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP)..... 59 1,107,087 59 1,107,087
014 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 115,113 115,113
015 CH-47 HELICOPTER.................. 38 1,076,036 38 1,076,036
016 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 83,346 83,346
MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT
017 C12 AIRCRAFT MODS................. 0 0
018 MQ-1 PAYLOAD--UAS................. 231,508 231,508
019 MQ-1 WEAPONIZATION--UAS........... 0 0
020 GUARDRAIL MODS (MIP).............. 16,272 16,272
021 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP)...... 4,294 4,294
022 AH-64 MODS........................ 178,805 178,805
023 CH-47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP). 39,135 39,135
024 UTILITY/CARGO AIRPLANE MODS....... 24,842 24,842
025 AIRCRAFT LONG RANGE MODS.......... 0 0
026 UTILITY HELICOPTER MODS........... 73,804 73,804
027 KIOWA WARRIOR MODS................ 192,484 192,484
028 AIRBORNE AVIONICS................. 0 0
029 NETWORK AND MISSION PLAN.......... 190,789 190,789
030 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE........... 133,191 -44,000 89,191
JTRS integration delayed....... [-44,000]
031 GATM ROLLUP....................... 87,280 87,280
032 RQ-7 UAV MODS..................... 104,339 104,339
SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
033 SPARE PARTS (AIR)................. 0 0
GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS
034 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT.. 34,037 34,037
035 SURVIVABILITY CM.................. 0 0
036 CMWS.............................. 127,751 127,751
OTHER SUPPORT
037 AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT........ 4,886 4,886
038 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT........... 82,511 82,511
039 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS........ 77,381 77,381
040 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL............... 47,235 47,235
041 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES............. 1,643 1,643
042 LAUNCHER, 2.75 ROCKET............. 516 516
TOTAL, AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY. 5,853,729 -44,000 5,809,729
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM
001 PATRIOT SYSTEM SUMMARY............ 84 646,590 84 646,590
002 MSE MISSILE....................... 12,850 12,850
003 SURFACE-LAUNCHED AMRAAM SYSTEM 0 0
SUMMARY.
004 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY.............. 1,401 1,401
005 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY... 400 81,121 400 81,121
006 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY.............. 1,403 64,712 1,403 64,712
007 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 19,931 19,931
008 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS)........ 1,608 218,679 1,608 218,679
009 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE 2,430 18,767 2,430 18,767
ROCKETS (RRPR).
010 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET 12,051 12,051
SYSTEM.
011 PATRIOT MODS...................... 199,565 199,565
012 ITAS/TOW MODS..................... 0 0
013 MLRS MODS......................... 2,466 2,466
014 HIMARS MODIFICATIONS.............. 6,068 6,068
015 HELLFIRE MODIFICATIONS............ 0 0
016 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 7,864 7,864
017 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS............... 3,864 3,864
018 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION 1,560 1,560
(MISSILES).
019 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT........... 5,200 5,200
TOTAL, MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY.. 1,302,689 0 1,302,689
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES
001 STRYKER VEHICLE................... 58 286,818 58 286,818
002 FCS SPIN OUTS..................... 0 0
MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
003 STRYKER (MOD)..................... 60,881 60,881
004 FIST VEHICLE (MOD)................ 57,257 57,257
005 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD)............. 148,193 148,193
006 HOWITZER, MED SP FT 155MM M109A6 10,341 10,341
(MOD).
007 PALADIN PIM MOD IN SERVICE........ 17 206,101 17 206,101
008 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 31 107,909 123,000 31 230,909
HERCULES).
Increased production........... [123,000]
009 ASSAULT BREACHER VEHICLE.......... 10 50,039 10 50,039
010 M88 FOV MODS...................... 29,930 29,930
011 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD).............. 129,090 129,090
012 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM............ 74,433 74,433
012A ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 91,000 91,000
Advanced procurement Abrams [91,000]
upgrade program.
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES
013 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV) 1,145 1,145
WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES
014 INTEGRATED AIR BURST WEAPON SYSTEM 506 506
FAMILY.
015 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN (7.62MM).. 0 0
016 MACHINE GUN, CAL .50 M2 ROLL...... 0 0
017 LIGHTWEIGHT .50 CALIBER MACHINE 610 25,183 -610 -25,183 0 0
GUN.
Program termination............ [-25,183]
018 MK-19 GRENADE MACHINE GUN (40MM).. 0 0
019 MORTAR SYSTEMS.................... 8,104 8,104
020 M107, CAL. 50, SNIPER RIFLE....... 0 0
021 XM320 GRENADE LAUNCHER MODULE 2,280 14,096 2,280 14,096
(GLM).
022 M110 SEMI-AUTOMATIC SNIPER SYSTEM 0 0
(SASS).
023 M4 CARBINE........................ 0 0
024 CARBINE........................... 12,000 21,272 12,000 21,272
025 SHOTGUN, MODULAR ACCESSORY SYSTEM 2,107 6,598 2,107 6,598
(MASS).
026 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS 240 56,725 240 56,725
STATION.
027 HOWITZER LT WT 155MM (T).......... 13,827 13,827
MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT
VEH
028 MK-19 GRENADE MACHINE GUN MODS.... 0 0
029 M777 MODS......................... 26,843 26,843
030 M4 CARBINE MODS................... 27,243 27,243
031 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS........ 39,974 39,974
032 M249 SAW MACHINE GUN MODS......... 4,996 4,996
033 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS...... 6,806 6,806
034 SNIPER RIFLES MODIFICATIONS....... 14,113 14,113
035 M119 MODIFICATIONS................ 20,727 20,727
036 M16 RIFLE MODS.................... 3,306 3,306
037 MODIFICATIONS LESS THAN $5.0M 3,072 3,072
(WOCV-WTCV).
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES
038 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (WOCV- 2,026 2,026
WTCV).
039 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (WOCV- 10,115 10,115
WTCV).
040 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS........... 442 442
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES
041 SMALL ARMS EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER ENH 2,378 2,378
PROG).
SPARES
042 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS (WTCV).... 31,217 31,217
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY. 1,501,706 188,817 1,690,523
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION
001 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES............ 158,313 158,313
002 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES............ 91,438 91,438
003 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES........... 8,954 8,954
004 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES........... 109,604 109,604
005 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES.............. 4,041 4,041
006 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES.............. 12,654 12,654
007 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES.............. 72,154 -37,000 35,154
Decrease for excess............ [-37,000]
008 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES.............. 60,138 -60,138 0
Decrease for excess............ [-60,138]
MORTAR AMMUNITION
009 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES............ 44,375 44,375
010 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES............ 27,471 27,471
011 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES........... 87,811 87,811
TANK AMMUNITION
012 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, 112,380 112,380
ALL TYPES.
ARTILLERY AMMUNITION
013 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM AND 50,861 50,861
105MM, ALL TYP.
014 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL 26,227 26,227
TYPES.
015 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE XM982... 110,329 -55,000 55,329
Excalibur I-b round schedule [-55,000]
delay.
016 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND 43,924 43,924
PRIMERS, ALL.
MINES
017 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL 3,775 3,775
TYPES.
NETWORKED MUNITIONS
018 SPIDER NETWORK MUNITIONS, ALL 17,408 -14,300 3,108
TYPES.
Program decrease............... [-14,300]
ROCKETS
019 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL 1,005 1,005
TYPES.
020 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES....... 123,433 123,433
OTHER AMMUNITION
021 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES... 35,189 35,189
022 GRENADES, ALL TYPES............... 33,477 33,477
023 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES................ 9,991 9,991
024 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES............. 10,388 10,388
MISCELLANEOUS
025 AMMO COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES........ 19,383 19,383
026 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES.. 7,336 7,336
027 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES................. 6,641 6,641
028 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 15,092 15,092
029 AMMUNITION PECULIAR EQUIPMENT..... 15,692 15,692
030 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 14,107 14,107
(AMMO).
031 CLOSEOUT LIABILITIES.............. 106 106
PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT
032 PROVISION OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 220,171 220,171
033 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS 182,461 182,461
DEMILITARIZATION, ALL.
034 ARMS INITIATIVE................... 3,377 3,377
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, 1,739,706 -166,438 1,573,268
ARMY.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
001 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED............. 27 7,097 27 7,097
002 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH 1,248 346,115 50,000 1,248 396,115
(FMTV).
Program increase for USAR...... [50,000]
003 FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED 19,292 19,292
FIREFIGHTING EQUIP.
004 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES 1,534 52,933 1,534 52,933
(FHTV).
005 PLS ESP........................... 18,035 18,035
006 ARMORED SECURITY VEHICLES (ASV)... 0 0
007 MINE PROTECTION VEHICLE FAMILY.... 0 0
008 FAMILY OF MINE RESISTANT AMBUSH 0 0
PROTEC (MRAP).
009 TRUCK, TRACTOR, LINE HAUL, M915/ 12 3,619 12 3,619
M916.
010 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK 60 26,859 60 26,859
EXT SERV.
011 HMMWV RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM.... 0 0
012 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE 950 69,163 950 69,163
PROTECTION KITS.
013 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP...... 91,754 91,754
014 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED 0 0
(MRAP) MODS.
015 TOWING DEVICE-FIFTH WHEEL......... 0 0
016 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS, OPA1.......... 0 0
NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES
017 HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN............... 0 0
018 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES....... 2,548 2,548
019 NONTACTICAL VEHICLES, OTHER....... 16,791 16,791
COMM--JOINT COMMUNICATIONS
020 JOINT COMBAT IDENTIFICATION 7,038 10,061 7,038 10,061
MARKING SYSTEM.
021 WIN-T--GROUND FORCES TACTICAL 2,166 892,635 2,166 892,635
NETWORK.
022 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM...... 45,626 45,626
023 JCSE EQUIPMENT (USREDCOM)......... 5,143 5,143
COMM--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
024 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE WIDEBAND SATCOM 23 151,636 23 151,636
SYSTEMS.
025 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND 6,822 6,822
COMMUNICATIONS.
026 SHF TERM.......................... 9,108 9,108
027 SAT TERM, EMUT (SPACE)............ 0 0
028 NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 3,592 27,353 3,592 27,353
(SPACE).
029 SMART-T (SPACE)................... 98,656 98,656
030 SCAMP (SPACE)..................... 0 0
031 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC--GBS............ 47,131 47,131
032 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (TAC SAT)..... 39 23,281 39 23,281
COMM--COMBAT SUPPORT COMM
033 MOD-IN-SERVICE PROFILER........... 0 0
COMM--C3 SYSTEM
034 ARMY GLOBAL CMD & CONTROL SYS 10,848 10,848
(AGCCS).
COMM--COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS
035 ARMY DATA DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 979 979
(DATA RADIO).
036 JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM....... 11,059 556,250 -30,000 11,059 526,250
AMF integration ahead of need.. [-30,000]
037 MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR 86,219 86,219
RADIO (MNVR).
038 RADIO TERMINAL SET, MIDS LVT(2)... 7,798 7,798
039 SINCGARS FAMILY................... 9,001 9,001
040 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS--OPA2.......... 108 24,601 108 24,601
041 TRACTOR DESK...................... 7,779 7,779
042 CMMS-ELEC EQUIP FIELDING.......... 0 0
043 SPIDER APLA REMOTE CONTROL UNIT... 34,365 -21,000 13,365
Funding ahead of need.......... [-21,000]
044 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM COMM/ 1,833 1,833
ELECTRONICS.
045 TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND 12,984 12,984
PROTECTIVE SYSTEM.
046 COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATOR 0 0
(CSEL).
047 GUNSHOT DETECTION SYSTEM (GDS).... 46 2,332 46 2,332
048 RADIO, IMPROVED HF (COTS) FAMILY.. 1,132 1,132
049 MEDICAL COMM FOR CBT CASUALTY CARE 2,535 22,899 2,535 22,899
(MC4).
COMM--INTELLIGENCE COMM
051 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE........ 1,564 1,564
052 RESERVE CA/MISO GPF EQUIPMENT..... 1,540 28,781 1,540 28,781
INFORMATION SECURITY
053 TSEC--ARMY KEY MGT SYS (AKMS)..... 6,087 23,432 6,087 23,432
054 INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY 2,469 43,897 2,469 43,897
PROGRAM-ISSP.
055 BIOMETRICS ENTERPRISE............. 0 0
COMM--LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS
056 TERRESTRIAL TRANSMISSION.......... 2,891 2,891
057 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS....... 13,872 13,872
058 WW TECH CON IMP PROG (WWTCIP)..... 9,595 9,595
COMM--BASE COMMUNICATIONS
059 INFORMATION SYSTEMS............... 142,133 142,133
060 DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM (DMS)...... 0 0
061 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE 57,727 57,727
MOD PROGRAM.
062 PENTAGON INFORMATION MGT AND 5,000 5,000
TELECOM.
ELECT EQUIP--TACT INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
065 JTT/CIBS-M........................ 1,641 1,641
066 PROPHET GROUND.................... 13 48,797 13 48,797
067 DIGITAL TOPOGRAPHIC SPT SYS (DTSS) 0 0
068 DRUG INTERDICTION PROGRAM (DIP) 0 0
(TIARA).
069 DCGS-A (MIP)...................... 1,743 184,007 1,743 184,007
070 JOINT TACTICAL GROUND STATION 5 2,680 5 2,680
(JTAGS).
071 TROJAN (MIP)...................... 21,483 21,483
072 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) 2,412 2,412
(MIP).
073 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRINTING AND 7,077 7,077
COLLECTION.
074 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (MIP).. 0 0
ELECT EQUIP--ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
075 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR.. 43 72,594 43 72,594
076 CREW.............................. 15,446 15,446
077 FMLY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE 0 0
CAPABILITIES.
078 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY 1,470 1,470
COUNTERMEASURES.
079 CI MODERNIZATION.................. 1,368 1,368
ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL SURV. (TAC
SURV)
080 FAAD GBS.......................... 7,980 7,980
081 SENTINEL MODS..................... 70 33,444 70 33,444
082 SENSE THROUGH THE WALL (STTW)..... 6,212 -6,212 0
Slow execution of prior years [-6,212]
appropriations.
083 NIGHT VISION DEVICES.............. 8,687 166,516 8,687 166,516
084 LONG RANGE ADVANCED SCOUT 0 0
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
085 NIGHT VISION, THERMAL WPN SIGHT... 82,162 82,162
086 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE 20,717 20,717
MOUNTED MLRF.
087 COUNTER-ROCKET, ARTILLERY & MORTAR 0 0
(C-RAM).
088 BASE EXPEDITIARY TARGETING AND 0 0
SURV SYS.
089 GREEN LASER INTERDICTION SYSTEM 1,014 1,014
(GLIS).
090 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF 29,881 29,881
SYSTEMS.
091 PROFILER.......................... 136 12,482 136 12,482
092 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (FIREFINDER 3,075 3,075
RADARS).
093 FORCE XXI BATTLE CMD BRIGADE & 0 0
BELOW (FBCB2).
094 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND--PLATFORM 1,032 141,385 1,032 141,385
(JBC-P).
095 LIGHTWEIGHT LASER DESIGNATOR/ 0 0
RANGEFINDER.
096 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR)........ 22,403 22,403
097 COMPUTER BALLISTICS: LHMBC XM32... 0 0
098 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM........ 29,505 29,505
099 COUNTERFIRE RADARS................ 13 244,409 13 244,409
100 ENHANCED SENSOR & MONITORING 2,426 2,426
SYSTEM (WMD).
ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS
101 TACTICAL OPERATIONS CENTERS....... 133 30,196 133 30,196
102 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY............ 1,642 58,903 1,642 58,903
103 BATTLE COMMAND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT 445 8,111 445 8,111
SYSTEM.
104 FAAD C2........................... 5,031 5,031
105 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & 12 64,144 12 64,144
CONTROL SYS.
106 KNIGHT FAMILY..................... 11,999 11,999
107 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE SUPPORT (LCSS) 1,853 1,853
108 AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION 14,377 14,377
TECHNOLOGY.
109 TC AIMS II........................ 0 0
110 TACTICAL INTERNET MANAGER......... 0 0
111 NETWORK MANAGEMENT INITIALIZATION 59,821 59,821
AND SERVICE.
112 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS)..... 721 51,228 721 51,228
113 SINGLE ARMY LOGISTICS ENTERPRISE 5,976 176,901 5,976 176,901
(SALE).
114 RECONNAISSANCE AND SURVEYING 15,209 15,209
INSTRUMENT SET.
ELECT EQUIP--AUTOMATION
115 ARMY TRAINING MODERNIZATION....... 8,866 8,866
116 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP... 129,438 129,438
117 GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS 9,184 9,184
SYS FAM.
118 CSS COMMUNICATIONS................ 2,062 20,639 2,062 20,639
119 RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYS 35,493 35,493
(RCAS).
ELECT EQUIP--AUDIO VISUAL SYS (A/
V)
120 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (A/V).. 8,467 8,467
121 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 89 5,309 89 5,309
ELECT EQUIP--SUPPORT
122 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (C-E)..... 586 586
123 BCT NETWORK....................... 0 0
124 DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION PROGRAM.. 0 0
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
124A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 3,435 3,435
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT
125 PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS................ 0 0
126 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT 1,562 3,960 1,562 3,960
(FNLE).
127 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS)........ 637 4,374 637 4,374
128 CBRN SOLDIER PROTECTION........... 219 9,259 219 9,259
129 SMOKE & OBSCURANT FAMILY: SOF (NON 0 0
AAO ITEM).
BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
130 TACTICAL BRIDGING................. 7 35,499 7 35,499
131 TACTICAL BRIDGE, FLOAT-RIBBON..... 68 32,893 68 32,893
ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
132 HANDHELD STANDOFF MINEFIELD 0 0
DETECTION SYS-HST.
133 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM 0 0
(GSTAMIDS).
134 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM 29,106 29,106
(RCSS).
135 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQPMT 522 25,459 522 25,459
(EOD EQPMT).
136 REMOTE DEMOLITION SYSTEMS......... 364 8,044 364 8,044
137 <$5M, COUNTERMINE EQUIPMENT....... 3,698 3,698
COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
138 HEATERS AND ECU'S................. 1,332 12,210 1,332 12,210
139 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT............... 6,522 6,522
140 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM 11,222 11,222
(PRSS).
141 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM............. 5,226 103,317 5,226 103,317
142 MOUNTED SOLDIER SYSTEM............ 0 0
143 FORCE PROVIDER.................... 0 0
144 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT........... 228 27,417 228 27,417
145 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL 8,891 52,065 8,891 52,065
PARACHUTE SYSTEM.
146 MORTUARY AFFAIRS SYSTEMS.......... 2,358 2,358
147 FAMILY OF ENGR COMBAT AND 266 31,573 266 31,573
CONSTRUCTION SETS.
148 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 818 14,093 818 14,093
PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
149 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & 208 36,266 208 36,266
WATER.
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
150 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL............ 1,938 34,101 1,938 34,101
151 MEDEVAC MISSON EQUIPMENT PACKAGE 20,540 20,540
(MEP).
MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT
152 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 20 2,495 20 2,495
SYSTEMS.
153 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (MAINT 0 0
EQ).
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
154 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, HVY, 6X4 (CCE). 2,028 2,028
155 SKID STEER LOADER (SSL) FAMILY OF 0 0
SYSTEM.
156 SCRAPERS, EARTHMOVING............. 9 6,146 9 6,146
157 MISSION MODULES--ENGINEERING...... 40 31,200 40 31,200
158 COMPACTOR......................... 0 0
159 LOADERS........................... 0 0
160 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR............... 0 0
161 TRACTOR, FULL TRACKED............. 61 20,867 61 20,867
162 ALL TERRAIN CRANES................ 1 4,003 1 4,003
163 PLANT, ASPHALT MIXING............. 1 3,679 1 3,679
164 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR 76 30,042 76 30,042
(HMEE).
165 ENHANCED RAPID AIRFIELD 182 13,725 182 13,725
CONSTRUCTION CAPA.
166 CONST EQUIP ESP................... 47 13,351 47 13,351
167 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (CONST 9,134 9,134
EQUIP).
RAIL FLOAT CONTAINERIZATION
EQUIPMENT
168 JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL (JHSV).... 0 0
169 HARBORMASTER COMMAND AND CONTROL 0 0
CENTER.
170 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (FLOAT/ 10,552 10,552
RAIL).
GENERATORS
171 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP... 2,074 60,302 2,074 60,302
MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT
172 ROUGH TERRAIN CONTAINER HANDLER 0 0
(RTCH).
173 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS............... 64 5,895 64 5,895
174 ALL TERRAIN LIFTING ARMY SYSTEM... 0 0
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
175 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT... 339 104,649 339 104,649
176 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM....... 125,251 125,251
177 CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER..... 8 19,984 8 19,984
178 AVIATION COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 10,977 10,977
TRAINER.
179 GAMING TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF 4,056 4,056
ARMY TRAINING.
TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
180 CALIBRATION SETS EQUIPMENT........ 3 10,494 3 10,494
181 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST 1,674 45,508 1,674 45,508
EQUIPMENT (IFTE).
182 TEST EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION 2,786 24,334 2,786 24,334
(TEMOD).
OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
183 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT 5,078 5,078
EQUIPMENT.
184 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3).. 46,301 46,301
185 BASE LEVEL COMMON EQUIPMENT....... 1,373 1,373
186 MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT 248 59,141 248 59,141
(OPA-3).
187 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (OTH)..... 2,446 2,446
188 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR USER TESTING 206 12,920 206 12,920
189 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS OPA3........... 1,141 19,180 1,141 19,180
190 TRACTOR YARD...................... 7,368 7,368
191 UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE........... 311 83,937 -12,000 311 71,937
Transfer to PE 0604641A at Army [-12,000]
request.
192 TRAINING LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT..... 0 0
OPA2
193 INITIAL SPARES--C&E............... 34 64,507 34 64,507
TOTAL, OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY.... 6,326,245 -19,212 6,307,033
JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT
FUND
NETWORK ATTACK
001 ATTACK THE NETWORK................ 0 0
JIEDDO DEVICE DEFEAT
002 DEFEAT THE DEVICE................. 0 0
FORCE TRAINING
003 TRAIN THE FORCE................... 0 0
STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE
004 OPERATIONS........................ 227,414 -227,414 0
Transfer to OCO................ [-227,414]
TOTAL, JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV 227,414 -227,414 0
DEFEAT FUND.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
001 EA-18G............................ 12 1,027,443 12 1,027,443
002 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 0 0
003 F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET........ 26 2,035,131 26 2,035,131
004 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 30,296 60,000 90,296
Retain option for additional FY [60,000]
14 aircraft.
005 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV........... 4 1,007,632 4 1,007,632
006 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 65,180 65,180
007 JSF STOVL......................... 6 1,404,737 6 1,404,737
008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 106,199 106,199
009 V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT)................ 17 1,303,120 17 1,303,120
010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 154,202 154,202
011 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/AH-1Z)........ 27 720,933 27 720,933
012 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 69,658 69,658
013 MH-60S (MYP)...................... 18 384,792 18 384,792
014 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 69,277 69,277
015 MH-60R (MYP)...................... 19 656,866 19 656,866
016 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 185,896 185,896
017 P-8A POSEIDON..................... 13 2,420,755 13 2,420,755
018 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 325,679 325,679
019 E-2D ADV HAWKEYE.................. 5 861,498 5 861,498
020 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 123,179 123,179
AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
021 C-40A............................. 0 0
TRAINER AIRCRAFT
022 JPATS............................. 33 278,884 33 278,884
OTHER AIRCRAFT
023 KC-130J........................... 3,000 3,000
024 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 22,995 22,995
025 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 51,124 51,124
026 MQ-8 UAV.......................... 6 124,573 6 124,573
027 STUASL0 UAV....................... 5 9,593 5 9,593
MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT
028 EA-6 SERIES....................... 30,062 30,062
029 AEA SYSTEMS....................... 49,999 49,999
030 AV-8 SERIES....................... 38,703 38,703
031 ADVERSARY......................... 4,289 4,289
032 F-18 SERIES....................... 647,306 647,306
033 H-46 SERIES....................... 2,343 2,343
034 AH-1W SERIES...................... 8,721 8,721
035 H-53 SERIES....................... 45,567 45,567
036 SH-60 SERIES...................... 83,527 83,527
037 H-1 SERIES........................ 6,508 6,508
038 EP-3 SERIES....................... 66,374 66,374
039 P-3 SERIES........................ 148,405 148,405
040 E-2 SERIES........................ 16,322 16,322
041 TRAINER A/C SERIES................ 34,284 34,284
042 C-2A.............................. 4,743 4,743
043 C-130 SERIES...................... 60,302 60,302
044 FEWSG............................. 670 670
045 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C SERIES........ 26,311 26,311
046 E-6 SERIES........................ 158,332 158,332
047 EXECUTIVE HELICOPTERS SERIES...... 58,163 58,163
048 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT.......... 12,421 12,421
049 T-45 SERIES....................... 64,488 64,488
050 POWER PLANT CHANGES............... 21,569 21,569
051 JPATS SERIES...................... 1,552 1,552
052 AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT MODS........ 2,473 2,473
053 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT.............. 114,690 114,690
054 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES........... 96,183 96,183
055 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM.... 0 0
056 ID SYSTEMS........................ 39,846 39,846
057 P-8 SERIES........................ 5,302 5,302
058 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION............. 34,127 34,127
059 RQ-7 SERIES....................... 49,324 49,324
060 V-22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY..... 95,856 95,856
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
061 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 1,166,430 1,166,430
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP &
FACILITIES
062 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT........... 387,195 387,195
063 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES.... 23,469 23,469
064 WAR CONSUMABLES................... 43,383 43,383
065 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES.......... 3,399 3,399
066 SPECIAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT......... 32,274 32,274
067 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION.. 1,742 1,742
068 CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS..... 0 0
TOTAL, AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY. 17,129,296 60,000 17,189,296
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
MODIFICATION OF MISSILES
001 TRIDENT II MODS................... 1,224,683 1,224,683
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES
002 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES..... 5,553 5,553
STRATEGIC MISSILES
003 TOMAHAWK.......................... 196 308,970 196 308,970
TACTICAL MISSILES
004 AMRAAM............................ 67 102,683 67 102,683
005 SIDEWINDER........................ 150 80,226 150 80,226
006 JSOW.............................. 280 127,609 280 127,609
007 STANDARD MISSILE.................. 94 399,482 94 399,482
008 RAM............................... 62 66,769 62 66,769
009 HELLFIRE.......................... 998 74,501 998 74,501
010 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED 0 0
MUNITIONS (SOPGM).
011 AERIAL TARGETS.................... 61,518 61,518
012 OTHER MISSILE SUPPORT............. 3,585 3,585
MODIFICATION OF MISSILES
013 ESSM.............................. 37 58,194 37 58,194
014 HARM MODS......................... 100 86,721 100 86,721
015 STANDARD MISSILES MODS............ 0 0
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES
016 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES..... 2,014 2,014
017 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON.... 21,454 21,454
ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
018 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT........ 54,945 54,945
TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP
019 SSTD.............................. 2,700 2,700
020 ASW TARGETS....................... 10,385 10,385
MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP
021 MK-54 TORPEDO MODS................ 75 74,487 75 74,487
022 MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS.......... 94 54,281 94 54,281
023 QUICKSTRIKE MINE.................. 6,852 6,852
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
024 TORPEDO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT......... 46,402 46,402
025 ASW RANGE SUPPORT................. 11,927 11,927
DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION
026 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION.. 3,614 3,614
GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
027 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS............ 12,594 12,594
MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
028 CIWS MODS......................... 59,303 7,700 67,003
Buy additional ordnance [7,700]
alteration kits.
029 COAST GUARD WEAPONS............... 19,072 19,072
030 GUN MOUNT MODS.................... 54,706 54,706
031 CRUISER MODERNIZATION WEAPONS..... 1,591 1,591
032 AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION 20,607 20,607
SYSTEMS.
OTHER
033 CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS..... 0 0
SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
034 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 60,150 60,150
TOTAL, WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY.. 3,117,578 7,700 3,125,278
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
001 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............. 27,024 27,024
002 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES....... 56,575 56,575
003 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION............ 21,266 21,266
004 PRACTICE BOMBS.................... 34,319 34,319
005 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES 53,755 53,755
006 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES.... 61,693 61,693
007 JATOS............................. 2,776 2,776
008 LRLAP 6" LONG RANGE ATTACK 7,102 7,102
PROJECTILE.
009 5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION.......... 48,320 48,320
010 INTERMEDIATE CALIBER GUN 25,544 25,544
AMMUNITION.
011 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION......... 41,624 41,624
012 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO... 65,893 65,893
013 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION........ 11,176 11,176
014 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION... 4,116 4,116
MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION
015 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION............. 83,733 83,733
016 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES......... 24,645 24,645
017 40MM, ALL TYPES................... 16,201 16,201
018 60MM, ALL TYPES................... 0 0
019 81MM, ALL TYPES................... 13,711 -10,000 3,711
Decrease for excess............ [-10,000]
020 120MM, ALL TYPES.................. 12,557 12,557
021 CTG 25MM, ALL TYPES............... 0 0
022 GRENADES, ALL TYPES............... 7,634 -500 7,134
Decrease for excess............ [-500]
023 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES................ 27,528 27,528
024 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES.............. 93,065 93,065
025 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES... 2,047 -2,000 47
Decrease for excess............ [-2,000]
026 FUZE, ALL TYPES................... 5,297 5,297
027 NON LETHALS....................... 1,362 1,362
028 AMMO MODERNIZATION................ 4,566 4,566
029 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 6,010 6,010
PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS
029B PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS................ -88,300 -88,300
Ammunition change in [-88,300]
requirements.
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & 759,539 -100,800 658,739
MC.
SHIPBUILDING & CONVERSION, NAVY
OTHER WARSHIPS
001 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM....... 1 608,195 1 608,195
002 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 0 0
003 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE.......... 2 3,217,601 2 3,217,601
004 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 874,878 777,679 1,652,557
Advance procurement for 2nd SSN [777,679]
in FY 14.
005 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS........... 1 1,613,392 1 1,613,392
006 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 70,010 70,010
007 SSBN ERO.......................... 0 0
008 DDG 1000.......................... 669,222 669,222
009 DDG-51............................ 2 3,048,658 2 3,048,658
010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 466,283 466,283
011 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP.............. 4 1,784,959 4 1,784,959
012 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 0 0
AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
013 LPD-17............................ 0 0
014 LHA REPLACEMENT................... 0 0
015 JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL........... 1 189,196 1 189,196
AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR
PROGRAM COST
016 OCEANOGRAPHIC SHIPS............... 0 0
017 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 307,300 307,300
018 OUTFITTING........................ 309,648 309,648
019 SERVICE CRAFT..................... 0 0
020 LCAC SLEP......................... 2 47,930 2 47,930
021 COMPLETION OF PY SHIPBUILDING 372,573 372,573
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL, SHIPBUILDING & CONVERSION, 13,579,845 777,679 14,357,524
NAVY.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT
001 LM-2500 GAS TURBINE............... 10,658 10,658
002 ALLISON 501K GAS TURBINE.......... 8,469 8,469
NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT
003 OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT........ 23,392 23,392
PERISCOPES
004 SUB PERISCOPES & IMAGING EQUIP.... 53,809 53,809
OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT
005 DDG MOD........................... 452,371 452,371
006 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT............ 16,958 16,958
007 COMMAND AND CONTROL SWITCHBOARD... 2,492 2,492
008 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT....... 20,707 20,707
009 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT....... 12,046 12,046
010 VIRGINIA CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.. 79,870 79,870
011 LCS CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT....... 19,865 19,865
012 SUBMARINE BATTERIES............... 41,522 41,522
013 LPD CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT....... 30,543 30,543
014 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP.. 16,257 16,257
015 DSSP EQUIPMENT.................... 3,630 3,630
016 CG MODERNIZATION.................. 101,000 101,000
017 LCAC.............................. 16,645 16,645
018 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS........... 35,446 35,446
019 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 65,998 65,998
020 CHEMICAL WARFARE DETECTORS........ 4,359 4,359
021 SUBMARINE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM..... 10,218 10,218
REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT
022 REACTOR POWER UNITS............... 286,859 286,859
023 REACTOR COMPONENTS................ 278,503 278,503
OCEAN ENGINEERING
024 DIVING AND SALVAGE EQUIPMENT...... 8,998 8,998
SMALL BOATS
025 STANDARD BOATS.................... 30,131 30,131
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
026 OTHER SHIPS TRAINING EQUIPMENT.... 29,772 29,772
PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT
027 OPERATING FORCES IPE.............. 64,346 64,346
OTHER SHIP SUPPORT
028 NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS............... 154,652 154,652
029 LCS COMMON MISSION MODULES 31,319 31,319
EQUIPMENT.
030 LCS MCM MISSION MODULES........... 38,392 38,392
031 LCS SUW MISSION MODULES........... 32,897 32,897
LOGISTIC SUPPORT
032 LSD MIDLIFE....................... 49,758 49,758
SHIP RADARS
033 RADAR SUPPORT..................... 0 0
034 SPQ-9B RADAR...................... 19,777 19,777
035 AN/SQQ-89 SURF ASW COMBAT SYSTEM.. 89,201 89,201
036 SSN ACOUSTICS..................... 190,874 190,874
037 UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 17,035 17,035
038 SONAR SWITCHES AND TRANSDUCERS.... 13,410 13,410
039 ELECTRONIC WARFARE MILDEC......... 0 0
ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
040 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE SYSTEM. 21,489 21,489
041 SSTD.............................. 10,716 10,716
042 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM......... 98,896 98,896
043 SURTASS........................... 2,774 2,774
044 MARITIME PATROL AND RECONNAISSANCE 18,428 18,428
FORCE.
ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT
045 AN/SLQ-32......................... 92,270 92,270
RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT
046 SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT.............. 107,060 107,060
047 AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM 914 914
(AIS).
SUBMARINE SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT
048 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT PROG.. 34,050 34,050
OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
049 COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY. 27,881 27,881
050 TRUSTED INFORMATION SYSTEM (TIS).. 448 448
051 NAVAL TACTICAL COMMAND SUPPORT 35,732 35,732
SYSTEM (NTCSS).
052 ATDLS............................. 0 0
053 NAVY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM 9,533 9,533
(NCCS).
054 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT... 60,111 60,111
055 SHALLOW WATER MCM................. 6,950 6,950
056 NAVSTAR GPS RECEIVERS (SPACE)..... 9,089 9,089
057 AMERICAN FORCES RADIO AND TV 7,768 7,768
SERVICE.
058 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP.. 3,614 3,614
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
059 OTHER TRAINING EQUIPMENT.......... 42,911 42,911
AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
060 MATCALS........................... 5,861 5,861
061 SHIPBOARD AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL..... 8,362 8,362
062 AUTOMATIC CARRIER LANDING SYSTEM.. 15,685 15,685
063 NATIONAL AIR SPACE SYSTEM......... 16,919 16,919
064 FLEET AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS. 6,828 6,828
065 LANDING SYSTEMS................... 7,646 7,646
066 ID SYSTEMS........................ 35,474 35,474
067 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS.... 9,958 9,958
OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
068 DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND AND CONT. 9,064 9,064
069 MARITIME INTEGRATED BROADCAST 16,026 16,026
SYSTEM.
070 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS....... 11,886 11,886
071 DCGS-N............................ 11,887 11,887
072 CANES............................. 341,398 341,398
073 RADIAC............................ 8,083 8,083
074 CANES-INTELL...................... 79,427 79,427
075 GPETE............................. 6,083 6,083
076 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM TEST FACILITY. 4,495 4,495
077 EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION....... 4,767 4,767
078 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 81,755 81,755
SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS
079 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS. 0 0
080 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION.... 56,870 56,870
081 MARITIME DOMAIN AWARENESS (MDA)... 1,063 1,063
082 COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS UNDER $5M.... 28,522 28,522
083 SUBMARINE BROADCAST SUPPORT....... 4,183 4,183
084 SUBMARINE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT. 69,025 69,025
SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
085 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.. 49,294 49,294
086 NAVY MULTIBAND TERMINAL (NMT)..... 184,825 184,825
SHORE COMMUNICATIONS
087 JCS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT...... 2,180 2,180
088 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS.......... 1,354 1,354
089 NAVAL SHORE COMMUNICATIONS........ 0 0
CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT
090 INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM 144,104 144,104
(ISSP).
CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT
091 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP.. 12,604 12,604
OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT
092 COAST GUARD EQUIPMENT............. 6,680 6,680
093 DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION PROGRAM.. 0 0
DRUG INTERDICTION SUPPORT
094 OTHER DRUG INTERDICTION SUPPORT... 0 0
SONOBUOYS
095 SONOBUOYS--ALL TYPES.............. 104,677 104,677
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
096 WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT... 70,753 70,753
097 EXPEDITIONARY AIRFIELDS........... 8,678 8,678
098 AIRCRAFT REARMING EQUIPMENT....... 11,349 11,349
099 AIRCRAFT LAUNCH & RECOVERY 82,618 82,618
EQUIPMENT.
100 METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT.......... 18,339 18,339
101 DCRS/DPL.......................... 1,414 1,414
102 AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT............. 40,475 40,475
103 AIRBORNE MINE COUNTERMEASURES..... 61,552 61,552
104 LAMPS MK III SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT.. 18,771 18,771
105 PORTABLE ELECTRONIC MAINTENANCE 7,954 7,954
AIDS.
106 OTHER AVIATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.. 10,023 10,023
107 AUTONOMIC LOGISTICS INFORMATION 3,826 3,826
SYSTEM (ALIS).
SHIP GUN SYSTEM EQUIPMENT
108 NAVAL FIRES CONTROL SYSTEM........ 3,472 3,472
109 GUN FIRE CONTROL EQUIPMENT........ 4,528 4,528
SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
110 NATO SEASPARROW................... 8,960 8,960
111 RAM GMLS.......................... 1,185 1,185
112 SHIP SELF DEFENSE SYSTEM.......... 55,371 55,371
113 AEGIS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT........... 81,614 81,614
114 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT EQUIPMENT........ 77,767 77,767
115 VERTICAL LAUNCH SYSTEMS........... 754 754
116 MARITIME INTEGRATED PLANNING 4,965 4,965
SYSTEM--MIPS.
FBM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
117 STRATEGIC MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIP... 181,049 181,049
118 SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS........ 71,316 71,316
119 SUBMARINE ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT... 4,018 4,018
120 SURFACE ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT..... 6,465 6,465
121 ASW RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT....... 47,930 47,930
OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
122 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP. 3,579 3,579
123 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 3,125 3,125
OTHER EXPENDABLE ORDNANCE
124 ANTI-SHIP MISSILE DECOY SYSTEM.... 31,743 31,743
125 SURFACE TRAINING DEVICE MODS...... 34,174 34,174
126 SUBMARINE TRAINING DEVICE MODS.... 23,450 23,450
CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
127 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES....... 7,158 7,158
128 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS............ 3,325 3,325
129 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP.. 8,692 8,692
130 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT........... 14,533 14,533
131 TACTICAL VEHICLES................. 15,330 15,330
132 AMPHIBIOUS EQUIPMENT.............. 10,803 10,803
133 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT....... 7,265 7,265
134 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION............ 15,252 15,252
135 PHYSICAL SECURITY VEHICLES........ 1,161 1,161
SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
136 MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT...... 15,204 15,204
137 OTHER SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.... 6,330 6,330
138 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION.. 6,539 6,539
139 SPECIAL PURPOSE SUPPLY SYSTEMS.... 34,804 34,804
TRAINING DEVICES
140 TRAINING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT........ 25,444 25,444
COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
141 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT......... 43,165 43,165
142 EDUCATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT....... 2,251 2,251
143 MEDICAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT......... 3,148 3,148
146 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT EQUIPMENT....... 3,502 3,502
148 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 15,696 15,696
149 C4ISR EQUIPMENT................... 4,344 4,344
150 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT... 19,492 19,492
151 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT....... 177,149 177,149
152 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. 183,995 183,995
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
152A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 13,063 13,063
SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
153 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 250,718 250,718
TOTAL, OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY.... 6,169,378 0 6,169,378
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES
001 AAV7A1 PIP........................ 16,089 16,089
002 LAV PIP........................... 186,216 -140,000 46,216
LAV procurement acquisition [-140,000]
objective change.
ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS
003 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM. 2,502 2,502
004 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER.. 17,913 17,913
005 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET 47,999 47,999
SYSTEM.
006 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER 17,706 17,706
$5 MILLION.
OTHER SUPPORT
007 MODIFICATION KITS................. 48,040 48,040
008 WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM....... 4,537 4,537
GUIDED MISSILES
009 GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE.......... 11,054 11,054
010 JAVELIN........................... 0 0
011 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW................. 19,650 19,650
012 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS SYSTEM-HEAVY 20,708 20,708
(AAWS-H).
OTHER SUPPORT
013 MODIFICATION KITS................. 0 0
COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
014 UNIT OPERATIONS CENTER............ 1,420 1,420
REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT
015 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT......... 25,127 25,127
OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
016 COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM............. 25,822 25,822
017 MODIFICATION KITS................. 2,831 2,831
COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-
TEL)
018 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & 5,498 5,498
ELEC).
019 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS......... 11,290 11,290
RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL)
020 RADAR SYSTEMS..................... 128,079 128,079
021 RQ-21 UAS......................... 5 27,619 5 27,619
INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL)
022 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM............... 7,319 7,319
023 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.... 7,466 7,466
025 RQ-11 UAV......................... 2,318 2,318
026 DCGS-MC........................... 18,291 18,291
OTHER COMM/ELEC EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
029 NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT............ 48,084 48,084
OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL)
030 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES......... 206,708 206,708
031 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS.............. 35,190 35,190
032 RADIO SYSTEMS..................... 89,059 89,059
033 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS.. 22,500 22,500
034 COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT 42,625 42,625
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
035A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 2,290 2,290
ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES
035 COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLES..... 2,877 2,877
036 COMMERCIAL CARGO VEHICLES......... 13,960 13,960
TACTICAL VEHICLES
037 5/4T TRUCK HMMWV (MYP)............ 8,052 8,052
038 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS..... 50,269 50,269
039 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE 0 0
REPLACEMENT.
040 LOGISTICS VEHICLE SYSTEM REP...... 8 37,262 8 37,262
041 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS....... 48,160 48,160
042 TRAILERS.......................... 0 0
OTHER SUPPORT
043 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 6,705 6,705
ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT
044 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT 13,576 13,576
045 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT............. 16,869 16,869
046 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS............. 19,108 19,108
047 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED.......... 56,253 56,253
048 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT...... 13,089 13,089
049 EOD SYSTEMS....................... 73,699 73,699
MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
050 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT....... 3,510 3,510
051 GARRISON MOBILE ENGINEER EQUIPMENT 11,490 11,490
(GMEE).
052 MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP........... 20,659 20,659
053 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION.. 132 132
GENERAL PROPERTY
054 FIELD MEDICAL EQUIPMENT........... 31,068 31,068
055 TRAINING DEVICES.................. 45,895 45,895
056 CONTAINER FAMILY.................. 5,801 5,801
057 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.. 23,939 23,939
058 FAMILY OF INTERNALLY TRANSPORTABLE 0 0
VEH (ITV).
059 BRIDGE BOATS...................... 0 0
060 RAPID DEPLOYABLE KITCHEN.......... 8,365 8,365
OTHER SUPPORT
061 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 7,077 7,077
SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
062 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 3,190 3,190
PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS
062A PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS................ -135,200 -135,200
LAV procurement acquisition [-135,200]
objective change PY.
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS.. 1,622,955 -275,200 1,347,755
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
TACTICAL FORCES
001 F-35.............................. 19 3,124,302 19 3,124,302
002 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 293,400 293,400
003 F-22A............................. 0 0
004 C-17A (MYP)....................... 0 0
OTHER AIRLIFT
005 C-130J............................ 68,373 68,373
006 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 0 0
007 HC-130J........................... 1 152,212 1 152,212
008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 0 0
009 MC-130J........................... 4 374,866 4 374,866
010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 0 0
011 HC/MC-130 RECAP................... 0 0
012 C-27J............................. 0 0
UPT TRAINERS
013 LIGHT MOBILITY AIRCRAFT........... 0 0
014 USAFA POWERED FLIGHT PROGRAM...... 0 0
HELICOPTERS
015 HH-60 LOSS REPLACEMENT/RECAP...... 60,596 60,596
016 COMMON VERTICAL LIFT SUPPORT 0 0
PLATFORM (CVLSP).
017 CV-22 (MYP)....................... 4 294,220 4 294,220
018 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 15,000 15,000
MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT
019 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/C.............. 5 2,498 5 2,498
020 LIGHT ATTACK ARMED RECON ACFT..... 0 0
021 RQ-11............................. 0 0
022 STUASL0........................... 0 0
OTHER AIRCRAFT
023 INTERIM GATEWAY................... 0 0
024 TARGET DRONES..................... 15 129,866 15 129,866
025 C-37A............................. 0 0
026 RQ-4.............................. 75,000 75,000
027 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 0 0
028 AC-130J........................... 2 163,970 2 163,970
029 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 0 0
030 MQ-9.............................. 24 553,530 24 553,530
031 RQ-4 BLOCK 40 PROC................ 11,654 11,654
STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
032 B-2A.............................. 82,296 82,296
033 B-1B.............................. 149,756 149,756
034 B-52.............................. 9,781 9,781
035 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED 28,800 28,800
COUNTERMEASURES.
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
036 A-10.............................. 89,919 89,919
037 F-15.............................. 148,378 148,378
038 F-16.............................. 6,896 6,896
039 F-22A............................. 283,871 283,871
040 F-35 MODIFICATIONS................ 147,995 147,995
AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
041 C-5............................... 6,967 6,967
042 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 0 0
043 C-5M.............................. 944,819 944,819
044 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 175,800 175,800
045 C-9C.............................. 0 0
046 C-17A............................. 205,079 205,079
047 C-21.............................. 199 199
048 C-32A............................. 1,750 1,750
049 C-37A............................. 445 445
050 C-130 AMP......................... 0 0
TRAINER AIRCRAFT
051 GLIDER MODS....................... 126 126
052 T-6............................... 15,494 15,494
053 T-1............................... 272 272
054 T-38.............................. 20,455 20,455
OTHER AIRCRAFT
055 U-2 MODS.......................... 0 0
056 U-2 MODS.......................... 44,477 44,477
057 KC-10A (ATCA)..................... 46,921 46,921
058 C-12.............................. 1,876 1,876
059 MC-12W............................ 17,054 17,054
060 C-20 MODS......................... 243 243
061 VC-25A MOD........................ 11,185 11,185
062 C-40.............................. 243 243
063 C-130............................. 67,853 67,853
064 C-130 INTEL....................... 0 0
065 C-130J MODS....................... 70,555 70,555
066 C-135............................. 46,707 46,707
067 COMPASS CALL MODS................. 50,024 50,024
068 RC-135............................ 165,237 165,237
069 E-3............................... 193,099 193,099
070 E-4............................... 47,616 47,616
071 E-8............................... 59,320 12,000 71,320
Restart production line for the [12,000]
JSTARS re-engining program.
072 H-1............................... 5,449 5,449
073 H-60.............................. 26,227 26,227
074 RQ-4 MODS......................... 9,257 9,257
075 HC/MC-130 MODIFICATIONS........... 22,326 22,326
076 OTHER AIRCRAFT.................... 18,832 18,832
077 MQ-1 MODS......................... 30,861 30,861
078 MQ-9 MODS......................... 238,360 238,360
079 MQ-9 UAS PAYLOADS................. 93,461 93,461
080 CV-22 MODS........................ 23,881 23,881
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
081 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS....... 729,691 729,691
COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
082 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP 56,542 56,542
POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT
083 A-10.............................. 5,100 5,100
084 B-1............................... 965 965
085 B-2A.............................. 0 0
086 B-2A.............................. 47,580 47,580
087 C-5............................... 0 0
088 KC-10A (ATCA)..................... 13,100 13,100
089 C-17A............................. 181,703 181,703
090 C-130............................. 31,830 31,830
091 C-135............................. 13,434 13,434
092 F-15.............................. 2,363 2,363
093 F-16.............................. 8,506 8,506
094 HH-60 PPS......................... 0 0
095 T-6............................... 0 0
096 OTHER AIRCRAFT.................... 9,522 9,522
INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS
097 INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIVENESS......... 20,731 20,731
WAR CONSUMABLES
098 WAR CONSUMABLES................... 89,727 89,727
OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES
099 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES.......... 842,392 842,392
DARP
103 U-2............................... 0 0
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
103A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 20,164 20,164
PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS
103B PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS................ -920,748 -920,748
Light attack armed [-115,049]
reconnaissance (LAAR)
cancellation.
Light mobiilty aircraft [-65,296]
cancellation.
Common vertical lift support [-52,800]
platform (CVLSP) cancellation.
C-130 AMP cancellation......... [-207,163]
RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 [-480,440]
cancellation.
TOTAL, AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR 11,002,999 -908,748 10,094,251
FORCE.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT--
BALLISTIC
001 MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ-BALLISTIC.. 56,906 56,906
TACTICAL
002 JASSM............................. 157 240,399 157 240,399
003 SIDEWINDER (AIM-9X)............... 164 88,020 164 88,020
004 AMRAAM............................ 113 229,637 113 229,637
005 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE......... 413 47,675 413 47,675
006 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB............... 144 42,000 144 42,000
INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
007 INDUSTR'L PREPAREDNS/POL 744 744
PREVENTION.
CLASS IV
008 ADVANCED CRUISE MISSILE........... 0 0
009 MM III MODIFICATIONS.............. 54,794 54,794
010 AGM-65D MAVERICK.................. 271 271
011 AGM-88A HARM...................... 23,240 23,240
012 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM).. 13,620 13,620
013 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB............... 5,000 5,000
MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
014 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS....... 74,373 74,373
SPACE PROGRAMS
015 ADVANCED EHF...................... 557,205 557,205
016 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 0 0
017 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER 36,835 36,835
SATELLITES(SPACE).
018 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 0 0
019 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT............. 2 410,294 2 410,294
020 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 82,616 82,616
021 SPACEBORNE EQUIP (COMSEC)......... 10,554 10,554
022 GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE)........ 58,147 58,147
023 DEF METEOROLOGICAL SAT PROG(SPACE) 89,022 89,022
024 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH 4 1,679,856 4 1,679,856
VEH(SPACE).
025 SBIR HIGH (SPACE)................. 2 454,251 2 454,251
026 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 0 0
SPECIAL PROGRAMS
028 DEFENSE SPACE RECONN PROGRAM...... 0 0
030 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAMS........... 138,904 138,904
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
030A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 1,097,483 1,097,483
TOTAL, MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR 5,491,846 0 5,491,846
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
ROCKETS
001 ROCKETS........................... 8,927 8,927
CARTRIDGES
002 CARTRIDGES........................ 118,075 118,075
BOMBS
003 PRACTICE BOMBS.................... 32,393 32,393
004 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............. 163,467 163,467
005 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION...... 3,259 101,921 3,259 101,921
FLARE, IR MJU-7B
006 CAD/PAD........................... 43,829 43,829
007 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD). 7,515 7,515
008 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 1,003 1,003
009 MODIFICATIONS..................... 5,321 5,321
010 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 5,066 5,066
FUZES
011 FLARES............................ 46,010 46,010
012 FUZES............................. 36,444 36,444
SMALL ARMS
013 SMALL ARMS........................ 29,223 29,223
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, 599,194 0 599,194
AIR FORCE.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES
001 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES....... 1,905 1,905
CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES
002 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE........... 18,547 18,547
003 CAP VEHICLES...................... 932 932
004 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 1,699 1,699
SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES
005 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES.... 10,850 10,850
006 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 9,246 9,246
FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT
007 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE 23,148 23,148
VEHICLES.
MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
008 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 18,323 18,323
BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT
009 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV AND CLEANING EQU 1,685 1,685
010 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 17,014 17,014
CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS
011 CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS..... 0 0
COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMSEC)
012 COMSEC EQUIPMENT.................. 166,559 166,559
013 MODIFICATIONS (COMSEC)............ 1,133 1,133
INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS
014 INTELLIGENCE TRAINING EQUIPMENT... 2,749 2,749
015 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT....... 32,876 32,876
016 ADVANCE TECH SENSORS.............. 877 877
017 MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS.......... 15,295 15,295
ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS
018 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS. 21,984 21,984
019 NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM.......... 30,698 30,698
020 BATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM--FIXED...... 17,368 17,368
021 THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS 23,483 23,483
IMPROVEMENTS.
022 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST...... 17,864 17,864
023 STRATEGIC COMMAND AND CONTROL..... 53,995 53,995
024 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN COMPLEX......... 14,578 14,578
025 TAC SIGINT SPT.................... 208 208
026 DRUG INTERDICTION SPT............. 0 0
SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS
027 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.... 69,743 69,743
028 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & CONTROL SYS... 15,829 15,829
029 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL...... 11,023 11,023
030 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM 64,521 64,521
031 COMBAT TRAINING RANGES............ 18,217 18,217
032 C3 COUNTERMEASURES................ 11,899 11,899
033 GCSS-AF FOS....................... 13,920 13,920
034 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM...... 9,365 9,365
035 AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CTR-WPN SYS 33,907 33,907
AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS
036 INFORMATION TRANSPORT SYSTEMS..... 52,464 52,464
037 BASE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE.......... 0 0
038 AFNET............................. 125,788 125,788
039 VOICE SYSTEMS..................... 16,811 16,811
040 USCENTCOM......................... 32,138 32,138
DISA PROGRAMS
041 SPACE BASED IR SENSOR PGM SPACE... 47,135 47,135
042 NAVSTAR GPS SPACE................. 2,031 2,031
043 NUDET DETECTION SYS SPACE......... 5,564 5,564
044 AF SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK SPACE 44,219 44,219
045 SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM SPACE...... 109,545 109,545
046 MILSATCOM SPACE................... 47,592 47,592
047 SPACE MODS SPACE.................. 47,121 47,121
048 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM............... 20,961 20,961
ORGANIZATION AND BASE
049 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT............ 126,131 126,131
050 COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATER.... 23,707 23,707
051 RADIO EQUIPMENT................... 12,757 12,757
052 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT........ 10,716 10,716
053 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE.......... 74,528 74,528
MODIFICATIONS
054 COMM ELECT MODS................... 43,507 43,507
PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP
055 NIGHT VISION GOGGLES.............. 22,693 22,693
056 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 30,887 30,887
DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ
057 MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP 2,850 2,850
BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
058 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT........... 8,387 8,387
059 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS............ 10,358 10,358
060 PRODUCTIVITY CAPITAL INVESTMENT... 3,473 3,473
061 RAPID IMPROVEMENT PROCUREMENT 0 0
INOVAT.
062 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT................ 14,471 14,471
063 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 1,894 1,894
SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS
065 DARP RC135........................ 24,176 24,176
066 DCGS-AF........................... 142,928 142,928
068 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAM............ 479,446 479,446
069 DEFENSE SPACE RECONNAISSANCE PROG. 39,155 39,155
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
069A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 14,331,312 14,331,312
SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
071 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 14,663 14,663
TOTAL, OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR 16,720,848 0 16,720,848
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, BTA
001 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, BTA.............. 0 0
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCAA
002 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 1,486 1,486
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA
003 MAJOR EQUIPMENT................... 2,129 2,129
EQUIPMENT
004 EQUIPMENT......................... 0 0
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA
005 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION.......... 6,147 6,147
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA
012 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY...... 12,708 12,708
013 GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM. 0 0
014 GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM...... 3,002 3,002
015 TELEPORT PROGRAM.................. 46,992 46,992
016 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 108,462 108,462
017 NET CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES 2,865 2,865
(NCES).
018 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK 116,906 116,906
019 PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE......... 1,827 1,827
020 DRUG INTERDICTION SUPPORT......... 0 0
021 CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE......... 10,319 10,319
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DLA
022 MAJOR EQUIPMENT................... 9,575 9,575
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DMACT
023 MAJOR EQUIPMENT................... 6 15,179 6 15,179
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA
024 AUTOMATION/EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & 1,458 1,458
LOGISTICS.
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE SECURITY
COOPERATION AGENCY
025 EQUIPMENT......................... 0 0
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DSS
026 MAJOR EQUIPMENT................... 2,522 2,522
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION AGENCY
027 VEHICLES.......................... 1 50 1 50
028 OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT............. 3 13,096 3 13,096
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DTSA
029 MAJOR EQUIPMENT................... 0 0
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE
AGENCY
030 THAAD............................. 36 460,728 100,000 36 560,728
THAAD Interceptors............. [100,000]
031 AEGIS BMD......................... 29 389,626 29 389,626
032 BMDS AN/TPY-2 RADARS.............. 1 217,244 1 217,244
033 RADAR SPARES...................... 10,177 10,177
034 IRON DOME......................... 0 0
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA
041 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY 6,770 6,770
PROGRAM (ISSP).
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD
042 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD.............. 45,938 45,938
043 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, INTELLIGENCE..... 17,582 17,582
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS
044 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS.............. 21,878 21,878
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS
045 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS.............. 26,550 26,550
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
045A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 555,787 555,787
AVIATION PROGRAMS
046 ROTARY WING UPGRADES AND 74,832 74,832
SUSTAINMENT.
047 MH-47 SERVICE LIFE EXTENSION 0 0
PROGRAM.
048 MH-60 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM....... 126,780 126,780
049 NON-STANDARD AVIATION............. 7 99,776 -62,776 7 37,000
Transfer to Line 51 at USSOCOM [-62,776]
request.
050 TANKER RECAPITALIZATION........... 0 0
051 U-28.............................. 7,530 109,376 116,906
Transfer from Line 49 at [62,776]
USSOCOM request.
USSOCOM UFR.................... [46,600]
052 MH-47 CHINOOK..................... 7 134,785 7 134,785
053 RQ-11 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE..... 2,062 2,062
054 CV-22 MODIFICATION................ 4 139,147 4 139,147
055 MQ-1 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE...... 3,963 23,000 26,963
USSOCOM UFR.................... [23,000]
056 MQ-9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE...... 3,952 35,400 39,352
USSOCOM UFR.................... [35,400]
057 RQ-7 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE...... 0 0
058 STUASL0........................... 12,945 12,945
059 PRECISION STRIKE PACKAGE.......... 73,013 73,013
060 AC/MC-130J........................ 51,484 51,484
061 MQ-8 UAV.......................... 0 0
062 C-130 MODIFICATIONS............... 25,248 25,248
063 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT.................. 5,314 5,314
SHIPBUILDING
064 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS................ 23,037 -8,000 15,037
Transfer to RDDW Line 272 at [-8,000]
USSOCOM request.
065 SEAL DELIVERY VEHICLE............. 0 0
AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
066 ORDNANCE REPLENISHMENT............ 113,183 113,183
067 ORDNANCE ACQUISITION.............. 36,981 36,981
OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS
068 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT AND 99,838 3,900 103,738
ELECTRONICS.
USSOCOM UFR.................... [3,900]
069 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS.............. 71,428 71,428
070 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS............ 27,108 27,108
071 DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE 12,767 3,200 15,967
SYSTEMS.
USSOCOM UFR.................... [3,200]
073 MARITIME EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS.. 0 0
074 COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS........... 42,348 42,348
075 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 600 600
077 TACTICAL VEHICLES................. 37,421 37,421
078 MISSION TRAINING AND PREPARATION 36,949 5,000 41,949
SYSTEMS.
USSOCOM UFR.................... [5,000]
079 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS....... 20,255 20,255
080 MILCON COLLATERAL EQUIPMENT....... 17,590 17,590
082 AUTOMATION SYSTEMS................ 66,573 66,573
083 GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE 6,549 6,549
ACTIVITIES.
084 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS 32,335 32,335
INTELLIGENCE.
085 SOLDIER PROTECTION AND SURVIVAL 15,153 15,153
SYSTEMS.
086 VISUAL AUGMENTATION LASERS AND 33,920 33,920
SENSOR SYSTEMS.
087 TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEMS............ 75,132 75,132
088 MARITIME EQUIPMENT................ 0 0
089 DRUG INTERDICTION................. 0 0
090 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT........... 6,667 6,667
091 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS.......... 217,972 25,300 243,272
USSOCOM UFR.................... [25,300]
092 MILITARY INFORMATION SUPPORT 27,417 27,417
OPERATIONS.
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
092A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 0 0
CBDP
093 INSTALLATION FORCE PROTECTION..... 24,025 24,025
094 INDIVIDUAL PROTECTION............. 73,720 73,720
095 DECONTAMINATION................... 506 506
096 JOINT BIO DEFENSE PROGRAM 32,597 32,597
(MEDICAL).
097 COLLECTIVE PROTECTION............. 3,144 3,144
098 CONTAMINATION AVOIDANCE........... 164,886 164,886
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE.. 4,187,935 234,400 4,422,335
NATIONAL GUARD & RESERVE EQUIPMENT
ARMY RESERVE
001 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT........... 0 0
NAVY RESERVE
002 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT........... 0 0
MARINE CORPS RESERVE
003 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT........... 0 0
AIR FORCE RESERVE
004 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT........... 0 0
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
005 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT........... 0 0
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
006 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT........... 0 0
NATIONAL GUARD AIRCRAFT
007 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT........... 0 0
TOTAL, NATIONAL GUARD & RESERVE 0 0 0
EQUIPMENT.
JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
001 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS 99,477 99,477
FUND.
TOTAL, JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL 99,477 0 99,477
NEEDS FUND.
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT................ 97,432,379 -473,216 96,959,163
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
ROTARY
009 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD. 2 71,000 -2 -71,000 0 0
Funding ahead of need.......... [-2] [-71,000]
012 KIOWA WARRIOR (OH-58F) WRA........ 16 183,900 16 183,900
015 CH-47 HELICOPTER.................. 6 231,300 6 231,300
TOTAL, AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY. 486,200 -71,000 415,200
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM
004 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY.............. 161 29,100 161 29,100
008 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS)........ 186 20,553 186 20,553
TOTAL, MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY.. 49,653 0 49,653
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY
MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT
VEH
036 M16 RIFLE MODS.................... 15,422 15,422
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY. 15,422 0 15,422
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION
003 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES........... 1,500 1,500
004 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES........... 10,000 10,000
007 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES.............. 80,000 80,000
MORTAR AMMUNITION
009 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES............ 14,000 14,000
010 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES............ 6,000 6,000
011 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES........... 56,000 56,000
ARTILLERY AMMUNITION
013 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM AND 29,956 29,956
105MM, ALL TYP.
014 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL 37,044 37,044
TYPES.
015 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE XM982... 12,300 12,300
016 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND 17,000 17,000
PRIMERS, ALL.
MINES
017 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL 12,000 12,000
TYPES.
ROCKETS
020 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES....... 63,635 63,635
OTHER AMMUNITION
023 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES................ 16,858 16,858
MISCELLANEOUS
028 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 1,200 1,200
PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, 357,493 0 357,493
ARMY.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
002 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH 223 28,247 223 28,247
(FMTV).
004 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES 2,050 2,050
(FHTV).
011 HMMWV RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM.... 2,128 271,000 2,128 271,000
014 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED 927,400 927,400
(MRAP) MODS.
COMM--INTELLIGENCE COMM
052 RESERVE CA/MISO GPF EQUIPMENT..... -660 8,000 -660 8,000
COMM--BASE COMMUNICATIONS
061 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE 25,000 40,000 65,000
MOD PROGRAM(.
Transfer from OMA OCO at [40,000]
SOUTHCOM request.
ELECT EQUIP--TACT INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
069 DCGS-A (MIP)...................... 960 90,355 960 90,355
073 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRINTING AND 6,516 6,516
COLLECTION.
ELECT EQUIP--ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
075 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR.. 27,646 27,646
077 FMLY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE 52,000 52,000
CAPABILITIES.
078 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY 205,209 205,209
COUNTERMEASURES.
ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL SURV. (TAC
SURV)
092 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (FIREFINDER 14,600 14,600
RADARS).
099 COUNTERFIRE RADARS................ -4 54,585 -4 54,585
ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS
102 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY............ 22,430 22,430
103 BATTLE COMMAND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT 2,400 2,400
SYSTEM.
112 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS)..... 6,400 6,400
113 SINGLE ARMY LOGISTICS ENTERPRISE 5,160 5,160
(SALE).
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT
126 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT 15,000 15,000
(FNLE).
127 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS)........ -5,400 66,100 -5,400 66,100
ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
135 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQPMT 3,565 3,565
(EOD EQPMT).
COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
143 FORCE PROVIDER.................... 1 39,700 1 39,700
145 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL 15 650 15 650
PARACHUTE SYSTEM.
PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
149 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & 13 2,119 13 2,119
WATER.
MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT
152 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 4 428 4 428
SYSTEMS.
153 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (MAINT 30 30
EQ).
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
175 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT... 7,000 7,000
176 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM....... -202 27,250 -202 27,250
178 AVIATION COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 1,000 1,000
TRAINER.
179 GAMING TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF 5,900 5,900
ARMY TRAINING.
OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
183 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT 98,167 -7,000 91,167
EQUIPMENT.
Slow execution of prior years [-37,000]
appropriations.
Solar power units.............. [30,000]
TOTAL, OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY.... 2,015,907 33,000 2,048,907
JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT
FUND
NETWORK ATTACK
001 ATTACK THE NETWORK................ 950,500 -100,000 850,500
Program decrease--under [-100,000]
execution.
JIEDDO DEVICE DEFEAT
002 DEFEAT THE DEVICE................. 400,000 -50,000 350,000
Program decrease--under [-50,000]
execution & program delays.
FORCE TRAINING
003 TRAIN THE FORCE................... 149,500 -21,000 128,500
Program decrease--under [-21,000]
execution & program delays.
STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE
004 OPERATIONS........................ 175,400 198,414 373,814
Transfer from Base............. [227,414]
Program decrease--excessive [-29,000]
contractor service support.
TOTAL, JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV 1,675,400 27,414 1,702,814
DEFEAT FUND.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
011 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/AH-1Z)........ 1 29,800 1 29,800
MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT
030 AV-8 SERIES....................... 42,238 42,238
032 F-18 SERIES....................... 41,243 41,243
035 H-53 SERIES....................... 15,870 15,870
038 EP-3 SERIES....................... 13,030 13,030
043 C-130 SERIES...................... 16,737 16,737
048 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT.......... 2,714 2,714
054 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES........... 570 570
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP &
FACILITIES
062 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT........... 2,380 2,380
TOTAL, AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY. 164,582 0 164,582
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
TACTICAL MISSILES
009 HELLFIRE.......................... 212 17,000 212 17,000
010 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED 50 6,500 50 6,500
MUNITIONS (SOPGM).
TOTAL, WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY.. 23,500 0 23,500
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
001 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............. 18,000 18,000
002 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES....... 80,200 80,200
003 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION............ 21,500 21,500
006 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES.... 20,303 20,303
011 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION......... 532 532
012 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO... 2,643 2,643
013 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION........ 2,322 2,322
014 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION... 6,308 6,308
MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION
015 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION............. 10,948 10,948
016 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES......... 9,940 9,940
017 40MM, ALL TYPES................... 5,963 5,963
020 120MM, ALL TYPES.................. 11,605 11,605
021 CTG 25MM, ALL TYPES............... 2,831 2,831
022 GRENADES, ALL TYPES............... 2,359 2,359
023 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES................ 3,051 3,051
024 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES.............. 54,886 54,886
025 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES... 1,391 1,391
026 FUZE, ALL TYPES................... 30,945 30,945
027 NON LETHALS....................... 8 8
029 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 12 12
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & 285,747 0 285,747
MC.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
070 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS....... 3,603 3,603
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
097 EXPEDITIONARY AIRFIELDS........... 58,200 58,200
CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
127 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES....... 3,901 3,901
128 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS............ 852 852
129 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP.. 2,436 2,436
130 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT........... 3,798 3,798
131 TACTICAL VEHICLES................. 13,394 13,394
134 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION............ 375 375
COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
149 C4ISR EQUIPMENT................... 3,000 3,000
151 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT....... 9,323 9,323
TOTAL, OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY.... 98,882 0 98,882
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES
002 LAV PIP........................... 10,000 10,000
ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS
005 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET 108,860 108,860
SYSTEM.
GUIDED MISSILES
010 JAVELIN........................... 29,158 29,158
OTHER SUPPORT
013 MODIFICATION KITS................. 41,602 41,602
REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT
015 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT......... 13,632 13,632
OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
017 MODIFICATION KITS................. 2,831 2,831
COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-
TEL)
019 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS......... 51 15,575 51 15,575
RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL)
020 RADAR SYSTEMS..................... 8,015 8,015
INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL)
023 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.... 35,310 35,310
OTHER COMM/ELEC EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
029 NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT............ 332 652 332 652
OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL)
030 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES......... 25 19,807 25 19,807
032 RADIO SYSTEMS..................... 74 36,482 74 36,482
033 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS.. 4 41,295 4 41,295
TACTICAL VEHICLES
039 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE 32 10,466 32 10,466
REPLACEMENT.
041 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS....... 7,642 7,642
ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT
045 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT............. 18,239 18,239
046 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS............. 51,359 51,359
047 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED.......... 20,247 20,247
049 EOD SYSTEMS....................... 207 362,658 207 362,658
MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
050 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT....... 55,500 55,500
052 MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP........... 19,100 19,100
GENERAL PROPERTY
054 FIELD MEDICAL EQUIPMENT........... 15,751 15,751
055 TRAINING DEVICES.................. 3,602 3,602
057 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.. 15,900 15,900
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS.. 943,683 0 943,683
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
035 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED 139,800 139,800
COUNTERMEASURES.
OTHER AIRCRAFT
055 U-2 MODS.......................... 46,800 46,800
063 C-130............................. 11,400 11,400
067 COMPASS CALL MODS................. 14,000 14,000
068 RC-135............................ 8,000 8,000
075 HC/MC-130 MODIFICATIONS........... 4,700 4,700
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
081 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS....... 21,900 21,900
OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES
099 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES.......... 59,000 59,000
TOTAL, AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR 305,600 0 305,600
FORCE.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
TACTICAL
005 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE......... 304 34,350 304 34,350
TOTAL, MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR 34,350 0 34,350
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
CARTRIDGES
002 CARTRIDGES........................ 13,592 13,592
BOMBS
004 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............. 23,211 23,211
005 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION...... 1,419 53,923 1,419 53,923
FLARE, IR MJU-7B
006 CAD/PAD........................... 2,638 2,638
010 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 2,600 2,600
FUZES
011 FLARES............................ 11,726 11,726
012 FUZES............................. 8,513 8,513
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, 116,203 0 116,203
AIR FORCE.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES
002 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE........... 2,010 2,010
004 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 2,675 2,675
SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES
006 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 2,557 2,557
MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
008 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 4,329 4,329
BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT
009 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV AND CLEANING EQU 984 984
010 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 9,120 9,120
ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS
022 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST...... 5,600 5,600
SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS
027 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.... 11,157 11,157
ORGANIZATION AND BASE
049 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT............ 7,000 7,000
053 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE.......... 10,654 10,654
MODIFICATIONS
054 COMM ELECT MODS................... 8,000 8,000
PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP
055 NIGHT VISION GOGGLES.............. 902 902
BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
059 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS............ 60,090 60,090
062 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT................ 9,400 9,400
063 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 9,175 9,175
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
069A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 2,672,317 2,672,317
SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
071 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 2,300 2,300
TOTAL, OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR 2,818,270 0 2,818,270
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA
015 TELEPORT PROGRAM.................. 5,260 5,260
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
045A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 126,201 126,201
AVIATION PROGRAMS
061 MQ-8 UAV.......................... 16,500 16,500
OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS
068 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT AND 4 151 4 151
ELECTRONICS.
069 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS.............. 41 30,528 41 30,528
077 TACTICAL VEHICLES................. 54 1,843 54 1,843
082 AUTOMATION SYSTEMS................ 1 1,000 1 1,000
086 VISUAL AUGMENTATION LASERS AND 12 108 12 108
SENSOR SYSTEMS.
091 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS.......... 31 14,758 31 14,758
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE.. 196,349 0 196,349
JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
001 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS 100,000 100,000
FUND.
TOTAL, JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL 100,000 0 100,000
NEEDS FUND.
TOTAL, PROCUREMENT................ 9,687,241 -10,586 9,676,655
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2013 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, ARMY
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 20,860 20,860
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
002 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 219,180 219,180
003 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 80,986 80,986
INITIATIVES.
004 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY 123,045 123,045
RESEARCH CENTERS.
..................... SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH. 444,071 0 444,071
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
005 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY..... 29,041 29,041
006 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC 45,260 45,260
SURVIVABILITY.
007 0602122A TRACTOR HIP.............. 22,439 22,439
008 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY...... 51,607 51,607
009 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 15,068 15,068
TECHNOLOGY.
010 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY....... 49,383 49,383
011 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS 25,999 25,999
TECHNOLOGY.
012 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 23,507 23,507
SIMULATION.
013 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 69,062 69,062
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
014 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY.... 60,823 60,823
015 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND 4,465 4,465
EQUIPMENT DEFEATING
TECHNOLOGY.
016 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 7,169 7,169
PROGRAM.
017 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 35,218 35,218
TECHNOLOGY.
018 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND 60,300 60,300
ELECTRONIC DEVICES.
019 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY.. 53,244 53,244
020 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS...... 18,850 18,850
021 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 19,872 19,872
TECHNOLOGY.
022 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 20,095 20,095
TECHNOLOGY.
023 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, 28,852 28,852
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY.
024 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE 9,830 9,830
TECHNOLOGY.
025 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING 70,693 70,693
TECHNOLOGY.
026 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/ 17,781 17,781
TRAINING TECHNOLOGY.
027 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY.... 28,281 28,281
028 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY....... 107,891 107,891
..................... SUBTOTAL, APPLIED 874,730 0 874,730
RESEARCH.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
029 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED 39,359 39,359
TECHNOLOGY.
030 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED 69,580 69,580
TECHNOLOGY.
031 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED 64,215 64,215
TECHNOLOGY.
032 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 67,613 67,613
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
033 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 104,359 104,359
AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
034 0603006A COMMAND, CONTROL, 4,157 4,157
COMMUNICATIONS ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
035 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND 9,856 9,856
TRAINING ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
036 0603008A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 50,661 50,661
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
037 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE............. 9,126 9,126
038 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING 17,257 17,257
& SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
039 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE............. 9,925 9,925
040 0603105A MILITARY HIV RESEARCH.... 6,984 6,984
041 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM-- 9,716 9,716
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
042 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL............. 3,487 3,487
043 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS............. 2,323 2,323
044 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 21,683 21,683
TECHNOLOGY.
045 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET 71,111 71,111
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
046 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE............. 10,902 10,902
047 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE 180,582 180,582
COMPUTING MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
048 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 27,204 27,204
BARRIER ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
049 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 6,095 6,095
PROGRAM.
050 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED 37,217 37,217
TECHNOLOGY.
051 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 13,626 13,626
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
052 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING 28,458 28,458
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
053 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL 25,226 25,226
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND
SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 890,722 0 890,722
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
054 0603305A ARMY MISSILE DEFENSE 14,505 14,505
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION.
055 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS 9,876 9,876
INTEGRATION.
056 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 5,054 5,054
BARRIER--ADV DEV.
057 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND 2,725 2,725
TARGET DEFEATING SYS--
ADV DEV.
058 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 30,560 30,560
AMMUNITION.
059 0603653A ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT 14,347 14,347
SYSTEM (ATAS).
060 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 10,073 10,073
SURVIVABILITY.
061 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC 8,660 8,660
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV
DEV.
062 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS 10,715 10,715
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
063 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 4,631 4,631
TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
064 0603782A WARFIGHTER INFORMATION 278,018 278,018
NETWORK-TACTICAL--DEM/
VAL.
065 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND 4,961 4,961
DEVELOPMENT.
066 0603801A AVIATION--ADV DEV........ 8,602 8,602
067 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 14,605 14,605
EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
068 0603805A COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT 5,054 5,054
CONTROL SYSTEM
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS.
069 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV. 24,384 24,384
070 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED 32,050 32,050
DEVELOPMENT.
071 0603850A INTEGRATED BROADCAST 96 96
SERVICE.
072 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 24,868 24,868
INITIATIVES.
073 0604131A TRACTOR JUTE............. 59 59
074 0604284A JOINT COOPERATIVE TARGET 0 0
IDENTIFICATION--GROUND
(JCTI-G)/TECHNOLOGY DEV.
075 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 76,039 76,039
CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2-
INTERCEPT (IFPC2).
076 0604775A DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION 0 0
PROGRAM.
077 0604785A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE 4,043 4,043
(BUDGET ACTIVITY 4).
078 0305205A ENDURANCE UAVS........... 26,196 26,196
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 610,121 0 610,121
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
079 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS........ 78,538 78,538
080 0604220A ARMED, DEPLOYABLE HELOS.. 90,494 90,494
081 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 181,347 181,347
DEVELOPMENT.
082 0604280A JOINT TACTICAL RADIO..... 0 0
083 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING 12,636 12,636
VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR).
084 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS 5,694 5,694
SYSTEM.
085 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE............. 32,095 32,095
086 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS. 96,478 96,478
087 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES. 3,006 3,006
088 0604609A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND 0 0
TARGET DEFEATING SYS--
ENG DEV.
089 0604611A JAVELIN.................. 5,040 5,040
090 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL 3,077 3,077
VEHICLES.
091 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL...... 9,769 9,769
092 0604641A TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND 13,141 12,000 25,141
VEHICLE (TUGV).
..................... Transfer from OPA line [12,000]
191 at Army request.
093 0604642A LIGHT TACTICAL WHEELED 0 0
VEHICLES.
094 0604661A FCS SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS 0 0
ENGR & PROGRAM MGMT.
095 0604662A FCS RECONNAISSANCE (UAV) 0 0
PLATFORMS.
096 0604663A FCS UNMANNED GROUND 0 0
VEHICLES.
097 0604664A FCS UNATTENDED GROUND 0 0
SENSORS.
098 0604665A FCS SUSTAINMENT & 0 0
TRAINING R&D.
099 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG 32,621 32,621
DEV.
100 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, 2,132 2,132
AND EQUIPMENT.
101 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING 44,787 44,787
DEVICES--ENG DEV.
102 0604716A TERRAIN INFORMATION--ENG 1,008 1,008
DEV.
103 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, 73,333 73,333
CONTROL AND
INTELLIGENCE--ENG DEV.
104 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION 28,937 28,937
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
105 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT 10,815 10,815
DEVELOPMENT.
106 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE 13,926 13,926
SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG
DEV.
107 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 17,797 17,797
TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
108 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, 214,270 214,270
INTEGRATION AND
EVALUATION.
109 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS-- 14,581 14,581
ENG DEV.
110 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 43,706 43,706
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
111 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, 20,776 20,776
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS--
ENG DEV.
112 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL 43,395 43,395
BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
113 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER-- 104,983 104,983
ENG DEV.
114 0604814A ARTILLERY MUNITIONS--EMD. 4,346 4,346
115 0604817A COMBAT IDENTIFICATION.... 0 0
116 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & 77,223 77,223
CONTROL HARDWARE &
SOFTWARE.
117 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT........ 3,486 3,486
118 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE 9,963 17,200 27,163
BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS).
..................... GFEBS realignment per [17,200]
Army request.
119 0604823A FIREFINDER............... 20,517 20,517
120 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR 51,851 51,851
DEM/VAL.
121 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD... 167,797 167,797
122 0604869A PATRIOT/MEADS COMBINED 400,861 -400,861 0
AGGREGATE PROGRAM (CAP).
..................... No funds authorized... [-400,861]
123 0604870A NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL 7,922 7,922
MONITORING SENSOR
NETWORK.
124 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 51,463 51,463
DEVELOPMENT.
125 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 158,646 158,646
PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
126 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 10,000 10,000
MISSILE (JAGM).
127 0605455A SLAMRAAM................. 0 0
128 0605456A PAC-3/MSE MISSILE........ 69,029 69,029
129 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND 277,374 277,374
MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD).
130 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE.... 639,874 639,874
131 0605626A AERIAL COMMON SENSOR..... 47,426 47,426
132 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 72,295 72,295
VEHICLE (JLTV)
ENGINEERING AND
MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
133 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............. 4,232 4,232
134 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 13,942 13,942
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM 3,286,629 -371,661 2,914,968
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
135 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR 18,090 18,090
DEVELOPMENT.
136 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS 14,034 14,034
DEVELOPMENT.
137 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 37,394 37,394
138 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER....... 21,026 21,026
139 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL..... 176,816 176,816
140 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION 27,902 27,902
PROGRAM.
141 0605502A SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE 0 0
RESEARCH.
142 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND 369,900 369,900
FACILITIES.
143 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST 69,183 69,183
INSTRUMENTATION AND
TARGETS.
144 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY 44,753 44,753
ANALYSIS.
145 0605605A DOD HIGH ENERGY LASER 0 0
TEST FACILITY.
146 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION... 5,762 5,762
147 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO 7,402 7,402
RDT&E ACTIVITIES.
148 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 19,954 19,954
149 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN 5,535 5,535
ITEMS.
150 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL 67,789 67,789
TESTING.
151 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER... 62,765 62,765
152 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD 1,545 1,545
COLLABORATION & INTEG.
153 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES... 83,422 83,422
154 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION 50,820 50,820
ACTIVITIES.
155 0605805A MUNITIONS 46,763 46,763
STANDARDIZATION,
EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY.
156 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 4,601 4,601
TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT.
157 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 18,524 18,524
158 0909999A FINANCING FOR CANCELLED 0 0
ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS.
..................... SUBTOTAL, RDT&E 1,153,980 0 1,153,980
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
159 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 143,005 143,005
PROGRAM.
160 0607665A FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS..... 0 0
161 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT 109,978 109,978
IMPROVEMENT.
162 0102419A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT 190,422 190,422
OFFICE.
163 0203347A INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO 0 0
CYBER (ISC) MIP.
164 0203726A ADV FIELD ARTILLERY 32,556 32,556
TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM.
165 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE 253,959 253,959
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
166 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM.. 68,325 68,325
167 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/ 280,247 -54,000 226,247
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
..................... Improved turbine [-54,000]
engine program delay.
168 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 898 898
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
169 0203758A DIGITIZATION............. 35,180 35,180
170 0203759A FORCE XXI BATTLE COMMAND, 0 0
BRIGADE AND BELOW
(FBCB2).
171 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE 20,733 20,733
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
172 0203808A TRACTOR CARD............. 63,243 63,243
173 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND 31,738 31,738
SYSTEM.
174 0208058A JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL 35 35
(JHSV).
176 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 7,591 7,591
ACTIVITIES.
177 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS 15,961 15,961
SECURITY PROGRAM.
178 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 120,927 120,927
SYSTEM.
179 0303142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT 15,756 15,756
(SPACE).
180 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 14,443 14,443
CONTROL SYSTEM.
182 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 31,303 31,303
VEHICLES.
183 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 40,876 40,876
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
184 0305219A MQ-1 SKY WARRIOR A UAV... 74,618 74,618
185 0305232A RQ-11 UAV................ 4,039 4,039
186 0305233A RQ-7 UAV................. 31,158 31,158
187 0305235A VERTICAL UAS............. 2,387 2,387
188 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 15,248 15,248
INTELLIGENCE.
189 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL 59,908 59,908
PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
189A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 4,628 4,628
..................... SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL 1,669,162 -54,000 1,615,162
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 8,929,415 -425,661 8,503,754
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, NAVY
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 113,690 113,690
INITIATIVES.
002 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 18,261 18,261
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
003 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 473,070 473,070
..................... SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH. 605,021 0 605,021
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
004 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED 89,189 89,189
RESEARCH.
005 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED 143,301 143,301
RESEARCH.
006 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING 46,528 46,528
FORCE TECHNOLOGY.
007 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED 41,696 41,696
RESEARCH.
008 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT 44,127 44,127
APPLIED RESEARCH.
009 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 78,228 78,228
APPLIED RESEARCH.
010 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING 49,635 49,635
ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
RESEARCH.
011 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 5,973 5,973
APPLIED RESEARCH.
012 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED 96,814 96,814
RESEARCH.
013 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 162,417 162,417
APPLIED RESEARCH.
014 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 32,394 32,394
WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
..................... SUBTOTAL, APPLIED 790,302 0 790,302
RESEARCH.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
015 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED 56,543 56,543
TECHNOLOGY.
016 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED 18,616 18,616
TECHNOLOGY.
017 0603235N COMMON PICTURE ADVANCED 0 0
TECHNOLOGY.
018 0603236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT 0 0
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
019 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 54,858 54,858
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
020 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 130,598 130,598
DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
021 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 11,706 11,706
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
022 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 256,382 256,382
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
023 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION 3,880 3,880
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
024 0603747N UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED 0 0
TECHNOLOGY.
025 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING 51,819 51,819
EXPERIMENTS AND
DEMONSTRATIONS.
026 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 0 0
WARFARE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 584,402 0 584,402
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
027 0603128N UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM... 0 0
028 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL 34,085 34,085
APPLICATIONS.
029 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY... 8,783 8,783
030 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND 3,773 3,773
AND CONTROL.
031 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS......... 24,512 24,512
032 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.. 8,090 8,090
033 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE 5,301 5,301
RECONNAISSANCE.
034 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS 1,506 1,506
TECHNOLOGY.
035 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER 190,622 190,622
MINE COUNTERMEASURES.
036 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO 93,346 93,346
DEFENSE.
037 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS 108,871 108,871
DEVELOPMENT.
038 0603513N SHIPBOARD SYSTEM 0 0
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT.
039 0603525N PILOT FISH............... 101,169 101,169
040 0603527N RETRACT LARCH............ 74,312 74,312
041 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER.......... 90,730 90,730
042 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL..... 777 777
043 0603553N SURFACE ASW.............. 6,704 6,704
044 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM 555,123 555,123
DEVELOPMENT.
045 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 9,368 9,368
WARFARE SYSTEMS.
046 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED 24,609 24,609
DESIGN.
047 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & 13,710 13,710
FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
048 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER 249,748 249,748
SYSTEMS.
049 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE 29,897 29,897
MACHINERY SYSTEMS.
050 0603576N CHALK EAGLE.............. 509,988 509,988
051 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP 429,420 429,420
(LCS).
052 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION 56,551 56,551
053 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS... 7,342 7,342
054 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT 95,182 95,182
VEHICLES.
055 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND 10,496 10,496
COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM.
056 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 52,331 52,331
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
057 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT... 56,512 56,512
058 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING 7,029 7,029
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
059 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 21,080 21,080
060 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM...... 55,324 55,324
061 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT... 3,401 3,401
062 0603734N CHALK CORAL.............. 45,966 45,966
063 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC 3,811 3,811
PRODUCTIVITY.
064 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE............ 341,305 341,305
065 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA............ 181,220 181,220
066 0603751N RETRACT ELM.............. 174,014 174,014
067 0603755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE--DEM/ 0 0
VAL.
068 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN........... 68,654 68,654
069 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES........ 44,487 44,487
070 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND 9,389 9,389
DEVELOPMENT.
071 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY... 16,132 16,132
072 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 44,994 44,994
TESTING.
073 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 137,369 137,369
AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
VAL.
074 0603889N COUNTERDRUG RDT&E 0 0
PROJECTS.
075 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND 0 0
ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS.
076 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 73,934 73,934
INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
(TADIRCM).
077 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION 711 711
OPTIMIZATION.
078 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO 71,300 71,300
CONTROLLED IED
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(JCREW).
079 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS 5,654 5,654
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
080 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 31,549 31,549
WARFARE (SEW)
ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING
SUPPORT.
081 0604775N DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION 0 0
PROGRAM.
082 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE 86,801 86,801
WARFARE WEAPON
DEVELOPMENT.
083 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 44,500 44,500
VEHICLE (JLTV)
ENGINEERING AND
MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
084 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT-- 13,172 13,172
MIP.
085 0303562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 0 0
WARFARE SYSTEMS--MIP.
086 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 643 643
DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 4,335,297 0 4,335,297
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
087 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT... 33,978 33,978
088 0604214N AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV.. 32,789 32,789
089 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT.... 84,988 84,988
090 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER 6,866 6,866
UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
091 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT 4,060 4,060
ENGINEERING.
092 0604221N P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM 3,451 3,451
093 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM... 13,071 13,071
094 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM.. 71,645 71,645
095 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE......... 119,065 119,065
096 0604245N H-1 UPGRADES............. 31,105 31,105
097 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS.. 34,299 34,299
098 0604262N V-22A.................... 54,412 54,412
099 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS 2,717 2,717
DEVELOPMENT.
100 0604269N EA-18.................... 13,009 13,009
101 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 51,304 51,304
DEVELOPMENT.
102 0604273N VH-71A EXECUTIVE HELO 61,163 61,163
DEVELOPMENT.
103 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 187,024 187,024
(NGJ).
104 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 337,480 337,480
SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY).
105 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT 260,616 260,616
SYSTEM ENGINEERING.
106 0604311N LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS 824 824
INTEGRATION.
107 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) 31,064 31,064
108 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE 63,891 63,891
IMPROVEMENTS.
109 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM............. 73,246 73,246
110 0604376M MARINE AIR GROUND TASK 10,568 10,568
FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC
WARFARE (EW) FOR
AVIATION.
111 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE 39,974 39,974
CONTROL--COUNTER AIR
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
112 0604404N UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED 122,481 122,481
AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE
AND STRIKE (UCLASS)
SYSTEM.
113 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER 255,516 255,516
SENSORS.
114 0604503N SSN-688 AND TRIDENT 82,620 82,620
MODERNIZATION.
115 0604504N AIR CONTROL.............. 5,633 5,633
116 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION 55,826 55,826
SYSTEMS.
117 0604518N COMBAT INFORMATION CENTER 918 918
CONVERSION.
118 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN........... 165,230 165,230
119 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 49,141 49,141
WARFARE SYSTEM.
120 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ 196,737 196,737
LIVE FIRE T&E.
121 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER 3,889 3,889
RESOURCES.
122 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT......... 8,335 8,335
123 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO 49,818 49,818
DEVELOPMENT.
124 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 10,099 10,099
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
125 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, 7,348 7,348
SIMULATION, AND HUMAN
FACTORS.
126 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 5,518 5,518
SYSTEMS.
127 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT 87,662 87,662
& CONTROL).
128 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 64,079 64,079
(ENGAGE: HARD KILL).
129 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 151,489 151,489
(ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW).
130 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING. 0 0
131 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT...... 12,707 12,707
132 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM..... 47,764 47,764
133 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 737,149 737,149
(JSF)--EMD.
134 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 743,926 743,926
(JSF)--EMD.
135 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 12,143 12,143
DEVELOPMENT.
136 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 72,209 72,209
DEVELOPMENT.
137 0605018N NAVY INTEGRATED MILITARY 0 0
HUMAN RESOURCES SYSTEM
(N-IMHRS).
138 0605212N CH-53K RDTE.............. 606,204 606,204
139 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 0 0
MISSILE (JAGM).
140 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 421,102 421,102
AIRCRAFT (MMA).
141 0204202N DDG-1000................. 124,655 124,655
142 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM-- 1,170 1,170
MIP.
143 0304503N SSN-688 AND TRIDENT 0 0
MODERNIZATION--MIP.
144 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 23,255 23,255
SYSTEMS.
145 0305124N SPECIAL APPLICATIONS 0 0
PROGRAM.
..................... SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM 5,747,232 0 5,747,232
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
146 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR 30,790 30,790
DEVELOPMENT.
147 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS 59,221 59,221
DEVELOPMENT.
148 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 35,894 35,894
149 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND 7,573 7,573
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION.
150 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 20,963 20,963
SUPPORT--NAVY.
151 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES 46,856 46,856
152 0605502N SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE 0 0
RESEARCH.
153 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION 796 796
SERVICES.
154 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & 32,782 32,782
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
155 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL 3,306 3,306
SUPPORT.
156 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND 70,302 70,302
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT.
157 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT 144,033 144,033
SUPPORT.
158 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION 342,298 342,298
SUPPORT.
159 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND 16,399 16,399
EVALUATION CAPABILITY.
160 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 4,579 4,579
WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
161 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/ 8,000 8,000
RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT.
162 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE 18,490 18,490
SUPPORT.
163 0305885N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 2,795 2,795
ACTIVITIES.
164 0804758N SERVICE SUPPORT TO JFCOM, 0 0
JNTC.
165 0909999N FINANCING FOR CANCELLED 0 0
ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS.
..................... SUBTOTAL, RDT&E 845,077 0 845,077
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
167 0604402N UNMANNED COMBAT AIR 142,282 142,282
VEHICLE (UCAV) ADVANCED
COMPONENT AND PROTOTYPE
DEVELOPMENT.
168 0604717M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 0 0
SERVICES SUPPORT.
169 0604766M MARINE CORPS DATA SYSTEMS 0 0
170 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS 105,892 105,892
SYSTEM SUPPORT.
171 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY 34,729 34,729
PROGRAM.
172 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 1,434 1,434
WARFARE DEVELOPMENT.
173 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC 19,208 19,208
COMMUNICATIONS.
174 0203761N RAPID TECHNOLOGY 25,566 25,566
TRANSITION (RTT).
175 0204136N F/A-18 SQUADRONS......... 188,299 188,299
176 0204152N E-2 SQUADRONS............ 8,610 8,610
177 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS 15,695 15,695
(TACTICAL).
178 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT.......... 4,171 4,171
179 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK 11,265 11,265
MISSION PLANNING CENTER
(TMPC).
180 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 45,922 45,922
SYSTEM.
181 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL 8,435 8,435
SUPPORT UNITS
(DISPLACEMENT CRAFT).
182 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED 75,088 75,088
RADAR (G/ATOR).
183 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING 20,229 20,229
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
184 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT 1,756 1,756
SUPPORT.
185 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 19,843 19,843
READINESS SUPPORT.
186 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT......... 11,477 11,477
187 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS...... 118,818 118,818
188 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM 27,342 27,342
INTEGRATION.
189 0205632N MK-48 ADCAP.............. 28,717 28,717
190 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS.... 89,157 89,157
191 0205658N NAVY SCIENCE ASSISTANCE 3,450 3,450
PROGRAM.
192 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER 86,435 86,435
SYSTEMS.
193 0206313M MARINE CORPS 219,054 219,054
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
194 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND 181,693 181,693
COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS
SYSTEMS.
195 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 58,393 58,393
SERVICES SUPPORT.
196 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ 22,966 22,966
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
SYSTEMS (MIP).
197 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES.... 21,107 21,107
198 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 2,857 2,857
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
199 0208058N JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL 1,932 1,932
(JHSV).
204 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 188,482 188,482
(SPACE).
205 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT 16,749 16,749
NETWORK ENTERPRISE
SERVICES (CANES).
206 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS 26,307 26,307
SECURITY PROGRAM.
207 0303150M WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 500 500
CONTROL SYSTEM.
208 0303238N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT 0 0
NETWORK ENTERPRISE
SERVICES (CANES)--MIP.
210 0305149N COBRA JUDY............... 17,091 17,091
211 0305160N NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND 810 810
OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE
(METOC).
212 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 8,617 8,617
PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES.
213 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 9,066 9,066
VEHICLES.
214 0305206N AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 0 0
SYSTEMS.
215 0305207N MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 30,654 30,654
SYSTEMS.
216 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 25,917 25,917
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
217 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 14,676 14,676
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
218 0305220N RQ-4 UAV................. 657,483 657,483
219 0305231N MQ-8 UAV................. 99,600 99,600
220 0305232M RQ-11 UAV................ 495 495
221 0305233N RQ-7 UAV................. 863 863
222 0305234M SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL 0 0
UAS (STUASL0).
223 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL 9,734 9,734
UAS (STUASL0).
224 0305237N MEDIUM RANGE MARITIME UAS 0 0
225 0305239M RQ-21A................... 22,343 22,343
226 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION 5,908 5,908
SUPPORT.
227 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 27,391 27,391
IF).
228 0702239N AVIONICS COMPONENT 0 0
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
229 0708011N INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.. 54,879 54,879
230 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY 5,000 5,000
(MARITECH).
230A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 1,151,159 1,151,159
..................... SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL 3,975,546 0 3,975,546
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
230B ..................... PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS....... -8,832 -8,832
..................... Medium range maritime [-8,832]
UAS cancellation.
.....................
..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 16,882,877 -8,832 16,874,045
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, AF
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 361,787 361,787
002 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 141,153 141,153
INITIATIVES.
003 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER 13,094 13,094
RESEARCH INITIATIVES.
..................... SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH. 516,034 0 516,034
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
004 0602102F MATERIALS................ 114,166 114,166
005 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE 120,719 120,719
TECHNOLOGIES.
006 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 89,319 89,319
APPLIED RESEARCH.
007 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION..... 232,547 232,547
008 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS........ 127,637 127,637
009 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY......... 98,375 98,375
010 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS... 77,175 77,175
011 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY 106,196 106,196
TECHNOLOGY.
012 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION 104,362 104,362
SCIENCES AND METHODS.
013 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER 38,557 38,557
RESEARCH.
..................... SUBTOTAL, APPLIED 1,109,053 0 1,109,053
RESEARCH.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
014 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR 47,890 47,890
WEAPON SYSTEMS.
015 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND 6,565 6,565
TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
016 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE 37,657 37,657
SENSORS.
017 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/ 81,376 81,376
DEMO.
018 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND 151,152 151,152
POWER TECHNOLOGY.
019 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT 32,941 32,941
TECHNOLOGY.
020 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT 64,557 64,557
TECHNOLOGY.
021 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE 29,256 29,256
SYSTEM (MSSS).
022 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 21,523 21,523
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
023 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS 36,352 36,352
TECHNOLOGY.
024 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS 19,004 19,004
TECHNOLOGY.
025 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 37,045 37,045
PROGRAM.
026 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE 31,419 31,419
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
027 0603924F HIGH ENERGY LASER 0 0
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAM.
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 596,737 0 596,737
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
028 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 3,866 3,866
DEVELOPMENT.
029 0603287F PHYSICAL SECURITY 3,704 3,704
EQUIPMENT.
030 0603430F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM 229,171 -1,500 227,671
(SPACE).
..................... Excess funding........ [-1,500]
031 0603432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE).. 120,676 120,676
032 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. 25,144 -2,000 23,144
..................... Excess funding........ [-2,000]
033 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION 32,243 32,243
TECHNOLOGY.
034 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND 4,507 4,507
DEVELOPMENT.
035 0603791F INTERNATIONAL SPACE 652 652
COOPERATIVE R&D.
036 0603830F SPACE PROTECTION PROGRAM 10,429 10,429
(SPP).
037 0603850F INTEGRATED BROADCAST 19,938 19,938
SERVICE--DEM/VAL.
038 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL 71,181 71,181
BALLISTIC MISSILE--DEM/
VAL.
039 0603854F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM 12,027 12,027
RDT&E (SPACE).
040 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION--DEM/ 2,054 2,054
VAL.
041 0603860F JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 57,975 57,975
AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
VAL.
042 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE........ 291,742 291,742
043 0604283F BATTLE MGMT COM & CTRL 114,417 114,417
SENSOR DEVELOPMENT.
044 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER...... 2,576 2,576
045 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED 16,711 16,711
TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM
(HDBTDS) PROGRAM.
046 0604330F JOINT DUAL ROLE AIR 0 0
DOMINANCE MISSILE.
047 0604337F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND 16,343 16,343
MATURATION.
048 0604422F WEATHER SATELLITE FOLLOW- 2,000 2,000
ON.
049 0604436F NEXT-GENERATION MILSATCOM 0 0
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
050 0604635F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS 9,423 9,423
FUZE DEVELOPMENT.
051 0604775F DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION 0 0
PROGRAM.
052 0604796F ALTERNATIVE FUELS........ 0 0
053 0604830F AUTOMATED AIR-TO-AIR 0 0
REFUELING.
054 0604857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE 0 45,000 45,000
SPACE.
..................... Restore Operationally [45,000]
Responsive Space.
055 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM.. 37,558 -3,000 34,558
..................... Excess funding........ [-3,000]
056 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL 96,840 96,840
POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER
EQUIPMENT) (SPACE).
057 0305178F NATIONAL POLAR-ORBITING 0 0
OPERATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE
SYSTEM (NPOESS).
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 1,181,177 38,500 1,219,677
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
058 0603840F GLOBAL BROADCAST SERVICE 14,652 14,652
(GBS).
059 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT.. 25,713 25,713
060 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE 6,583 6,583
FLIGHT TRAINING.
061 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE 1,975 1,975
DEVELOPMENT.
062 0604280F JOINT TACTICAL RADIO..... 2,594 2,594
063 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS 24,534 24,534
ENTERPRISE.
064 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY 51 51
EQUIPMENT.
065 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 143,000 143,000
(SDB)--EMD.
066 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS..... 28,797 28,797
067 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 267,252 -20,000 247,252
SYSTEMS.
..................... Excess funding........ [-20,000]
068 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC 4,118 4,118
ATTACK.
069 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED 448,594 -2,000 446,594
SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
..................... Excess funding........ [-2,000]
070 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE 9,951 9,951
DEVELOPMENT.
071 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS............. 2,567 2,567
072 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT..... 13,059 13,059
073 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS..... 9,720 9,720
074 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES... 9,222 9,222
075 0604740F INTEGRATED COMMAND & 0 0
CONTROL APPLICATIONS
(IC2A).
076 0604750F INTELLIGENCE EQUIPMENT... 803 803
077 0604800F F-35--EMD................ 1,210,306 1,210,306
078 0604851F INTERCONTINENTAL 135,437 135,437
BALLISTIC MISSILE--EMD.
079 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH 7,980 7,980
VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)--
EMD.
080 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF 2,004 2,004
WEAPON.
081 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION.. 73,512 73,512
082 0605213F F-22 MODERNIZATION 140,100 140,100
INCREMENT 3.2B.
083 0605221F NEXT GENERATION AERIAL 1,815,588 -87,130 1,728,458
REFUELING AIRCRAFT.
..................... Excess prior year [-87,130]
funds.
084 0605229F CSAR HH-60 123,210 123,210
RECAPITALIZATION.
085 0605278F HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E.... 19,039 19,039
086 0605931F B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT 281,056 281,056
SYSTEM.
087 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS 80,200 80,200
MODERNIZATION.
088 0207100F LIGHT ATTACK ARMED 0 0
RECONNAISSANCE (LAAR)
SQUADRONS.
089 0207604F READINESS TRAINING 310 310
RANGES, OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE.
090 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION 14,861 14,861
TRAINING.
091 0305230F MC-12.................... 19,949 19,949
092 0401138F C-27J AIRLIFT SQUADRONS.. 0 0
093 0401318F CV-22.................... 28,027 28,027
094 0401845F AIRBORNE SENIOR LEADER C3 1,960 1,960
(SLC3S).
..................... SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM 4,966,724 -109,130 4,857,594
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
095 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR 22,812 22,812
DEVELOPMENT.
096 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 42,236 42,236
097 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE... 25,579 25,579
098 0605502F SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION 0 0
RESEARCH.
099 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST 16,197 16,197
& EVALUATION.
100 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION 722,071 722,071
SUPPORT.
101 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH 16,200 16,200
PROGRAM (SPACE).
102 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP). 10,051 35,000 45,051
..................... Restore Space Test [35,000]
Program.
103 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION 42,597 42,597
AND MODERNIZATION--TEST
AND EVALUATION SUPPORT.
104 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT-- 27,301 27,301
TEST AND EVALUATION
SUPPORT.
105 0606323F MULTI-SERVICE SYSTEMS 13,964 13,964
ENGINEERING INITIATIVE.
106 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER 203,766 203,766
(SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE.
107 0702806F ACQUISITION AND 42,430 42,430
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
108 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING... 1,294 1,294
109 0909980F JUDGMENT FUND 0 0
REIMBURSEMENT.
110 0909999F FINANCING FOR CANCELLED 0 0
ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS.
111 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 3,851 3,851
..................... SUBTOTAL, RDT&E 1,190,349 35,000 1,225,349
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
112 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 371,595 -1,500 370,095
III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL
SEGMENT.
..................... Excess funding........ [-1,500]
113 0604263F COMMON VERTICAL LIFT 0 0
SUPPORT PLATFORM.
114 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL 91,697 91,697
AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS).
115 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 17,037 17,037
EXECUTIVE AGENCY.
117 0101113F B-52 SQUADRONS........... 53,208 53,208
118 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE 431 431
MISSILE (ALCM).
119 0101126F B-1B SQUADRONS........... 16,265 16,265
120 0101127F B-2 SQUADRONS............ 35,970 -15,000 20,970
..................... Efficiencies.......... [-15,000]
121 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING 30,889 30,889
SYSTEM--USSTRATCOM.
122 0101314F NIGHT FIST--USSTRATCOM... 10 10
124 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION 5,609 5,609
CONTROL CENTER
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
125 0102823F STRATEGIC AEROSPACE 0 0
INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM
ACTIVITIES.
126 0203761F WARFIGHTER RAPID 15,098 15,098
ACQUISITION PROCESS
(WRAP) RAPID TRANSITION
FUND.
127 0205219F MQ-9 UAV................. 147,971 147,971
128 0207040F MULTI-PLATFORM ELECTRONIC 49,848 49,848
WARFARE EQUIPMENT.
129 0207131F A-10 SQUADRONS........... 13,538 13,538
130 0207133F F-16 SQUADRONS........... 190,257 190,257
131 0207134F F-15E SQUADRONS.......... 192,677 192,677
132 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE 13,683 13,683
SUPPRESSION.
133 0207138F F-22A SQUADRONS.......... 371,667 371,667
134 0207142F F-35 SQUADRONS........... 8,117 8,117
135 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES.... 8,234 8,234
136 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 87,041 87,041
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
137 0207170F JOINT HELMET MOUNTED 1,472 1,472
CUEING SYSTEM (JHMCS).
138 0207224F COMBAT RESCUE AND 2,095 2,095
RECOVERY.
139 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE 1,119 1,119
140 0207247F AF TENCAP................ 63,853 63,853
141 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS 1,063 1,063
PROCUREMENT.
142 0207253F COMPASS CALL............. 12,094 12,094
143 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 187,984 187,984
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
144 0207277F ISR INNOVATIONS.......... 0 0
145 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE 7,950 7,950
STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM).
146 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS 76,315 76,315
CENTER (AOC).
147 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING 8,653 8,653
CENTER (CRC).
148 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND 65,200 65,200
CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS).
149 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL 5,767 5,767
SYSTEMS.
150 0207423F ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS 0 0
SYSTEMS.
152 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE 5,756 5,756
SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
153 0207438F THEATER BATTLE MANAGEMENT 0 0
(TBM) C4I.
154 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL 16,226 16,226
PARTY-MOD.
155 0207445F FIGHTER TACTICAL DATA 0 0
LINK.
156 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK. 1,633 1,633
157 0207449F COMMAND AND CONTROL (C2) 18,086 18,086
CONSTELLATION.
158 0207452F DCAPES................... 15,690 15,690
159 0207581F JOINT SURVEILLANCE/TARGET 24,241 24,241
ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM
(JSTARS).
160 0207590F SEEK EAGLE............... 22,654 22,654
161 0207601F USAF MODELING AND 15,501 15,501
SIMULATION.
162 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION 5,699 5,699
CENTERS.
163 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND 4,425 4,425
EXERCISES.
164 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS. 69,377 69,377
165 0208021F INFORMATION WARFARE 7,159 7,159
SUPPORT.
166 0208059F CYBER COMMAND ACTIVITIES. 66,888 66,888
174 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY 12,056 12,056
INTELLIGENCE.
175 0302015F E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE 4,159 4,159
OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC).
176 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 20,124 20,124
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK (MEECN).
177 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS 69,133 69,133
SECURITY PROGRAM.
178 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 6,512 6,512
SYSTEM.
179 0303150F GLOBAL COMMAND AND 4,316 4,316
CONTROL SYSTEM.
180 0303601F MILSATCOM TERMINALS...... 107,237 107,237
182 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT 129,106 129,106
ENTERPRISE.
185 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC 4,461 4,461
MANAGEMENT (GATM).
186 0305103F CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 2,055 2,055
187 0305105F DOD CYBER CRIME CENTER... 285 285
188 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK 33,773 33,773
(SPACE).
189 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE.......... 29,048 29,048
190 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, 43,187 43,187
APPROACH, AND LANDING
SYSTEM (ATCALS).
191 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS........... 50,496 50,496
194 0305128F SECURITY AND 354 354
INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES.
195 0305145F ARMS CONTROL 4,000 4,000
IMPLEMENTATION.
196 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT 342 342
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
ACTIVITIES.
198 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL 29,621 29,621
POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER
EQUIPMENT) (SPACE).
199 0305165F NAVSTAR GLOBAL 14,335 14,335
POSITIONING SYSTEM
(SPACE AND CONTROL
SEGMENTS).
201 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST 3,680 3,680
AND EVALUATION CENTER.
202 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION AND 2,430 2,430
DEVELOPMENT CENTER.
203 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM 8,760 8,760
(SPACE).
204 0305193F INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO 0 0
INFORMATION OPERATIONS
(IO).
205 0305202F DRAGON U-2............... 23,644 23,644
206 0305205F ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL 21,000 21,000
VEHICLES.
207 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 96,735 96,735
SYSTEMS.
208 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 13,316 13,316
SYSTEMS.
209 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 63,501 63,501
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
210 0305219F MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV...... 9,122 9,122
211 0305220F RQ-4 UAV................. 236,265 236,265
212 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC 7,367 7,367
COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
213 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK (CDL)... 38,094 38,094
214 0305238F NATO AGS................. 210,109 210,109
215 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS 24,500 24,500
ENTERPRISE.
216 0305265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT.... 318,992 318,992
217 0305614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM..... 54,645 54,645
218 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION.. 4,007 4,007
219 0305887F INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO 13,357 13,357
INFORMATION WARFARE.
220 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM 64,965 64,965
(SPACE).
221 0305940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 19,586 19,586
OPERATIONS.
222 0307141F INFORMATION OPERATIONS 0 0
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION &
TOOL DEVELOPMENT.
223 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING 1,175 1,175
(SEW).
224 0401115F C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON... 5,000 5,000
225 0401119F C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS 35,115 35,115
(IF).
226 0401130F C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF)....... 99,225 99,225
227 0401132F C-130J PROGRAM........... 30,652 30,652
228 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR 7,758 7,758
COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM).
229 0401139F LIGHT MOBILITY AIRCRAFT 100 100
(LIMA).
230 0401218F KC-135S.................. 0 0
231 0401219F KC-10S................... 24,022 24,022
232 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT 7,471 7,471
AIRLIFT.
233 0401315F C-STOL AIRCRAFT.......... 0 0
234 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT 4,984 4,984
CONTROL.
235 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 1,588 1,588
IF).
236 0708012F LOGISTICS SUPPORT 577 577
ACTIVITIES.
237 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION 119,327 119,327
TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
238 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS 15,873 15,873
DEVELOPMENT.
239 0801711F RECRUITING ACTIVITIES.... 0 0
240 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING.... 349 349
241 0804757F JOINT NATIONAL TRAINING 0 0
CENTER.
242 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL 117 117
ACTIVITIES.
243 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY 2,018 2,018
AGENCY.
244 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION 1,561 1,561
PROGRAM.
245 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION. 7,634 7,634
246 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND 1,175 1,175
ANALYSIS AGENCY.
247 0901279F FACILITIES OPERATION-- 3,491 3,491
ADMINISTRATIVE.
248 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 100,160 100,160
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
249 0902998F MANAGEMENT HQ--ADP 0 0
SUPPORT (AF).
249A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 11,172,183 -22,600 11,149,583
..................... Classified reduction.. [-4,600]
..................... Classified reduction.. [-18,000]
..................... SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL 15,867,972 -39,100 15,828,872
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
249B ..................... PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS....... -78,426 -78,426
..................... C-130 AMP cancellation [-6,509]
..................... MALD II Cancellation.. [-7,917]
..................... Global Hawk Block 30 [-64,000]
cancellation.
.....................
..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 25,428,046 -153,156 25,274,890
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, DW
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH 45,071 45,071
INITIATIVE.
002 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 309,051 309,051
003 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH 19,405 19,405
INITIATIVES.
004 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL 39,676 39,676
RESEARCH SCIENCE.
005 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE 87,979 87,979
EDUCATION PROGRAM.
006 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 50,566 50,566
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
..................... SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH. 551,748 0 551,748
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
007 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS 20,615 20,615
TECHNOLOGY.
008 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY.... 110,900 110,900
009 0602228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK 0 0
COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES (HBCU)
SCIENCE.
010 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY 36,826 36,826
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
011 0602250D8Z SYSTEMS 2020 APPLIED 7,898 7,898
RESEARCH.
012 0602303E INFORMATION & 392,421 392,421
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY.
013 0602304E COGNITIVE COMPUTING 30,424 30,424
SYSTEMS.
014 0602305E MACHINE INTELLIGENCE..... 0 0
015 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE 19,236 19,236
DEFENSE.
016 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 223,269 223,269
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
017 0602663D8Z DATA TO DECISIONS APPLIED 13,753 13,753
RESEARCH.
018 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH.. 18,985 18,985
019 0602670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE 6,771 6,771
BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB)
APPLIED RESEARCH.
020 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY...... 233,209 233,209
021 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL 166,067 166,067
TECHNOLOGY.
022 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY... 222,416 222,416
023 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS 172,352 172,352
DESTRUCTION DEFEAT
TECHNOLOGIES.
024 1160401BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 28,739 28,739
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL, APPLIED 1,703,881 0 1,703,881
RESEARCH.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT (ATD)
025 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED 25,612 25,612
TECHNOLOGY.
026 0603121D8Z SO/LIC ADVANCED 26,324 26,324
DEVELOPMENT.
027 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 77,144 -11,300 65,844
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
..................... Reduction due to [-11,300]
duplication of effort.
028 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION 275,022 275,022
INITIATIVES--PROLIFERATI
ON PREVENTION AND DEFEAT.
029 0603175C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 79,975 79,975
TECHNOLOGY.
030 0603200D8Z JOINT ADVANCED CONCEPTS.. 0 0
031 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS 20,032 20,032
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
032 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR 3,892 3,892
THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)--
THEATER CAPABILITY.
033 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM--MDA 36,685 36,685
TECHNOLOGY.
034 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE 174,316 174,316
SYSTEMS.
035 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND 159,704 159,704
TECHNOLOGY.
036 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 234,280 234,280
DEFENSE PROGRAM--
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
037 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED 6,983 6,983
TECHNOLOGY.
038 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY 158,263 158,263
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
039 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS 25,393 25,393
CAPABILITIES.
040 0603663D8Z DATA TO DECISIONS 13,754 13,754
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
041 0603665D8Z BIOMETRICS SCIENCE AND 0 0
TECHNOLOGY.
042 0603668D8Z CYBER SECURITY ADVANCED 19,935 19,935
RESEARCH.
043 0603670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE 8,235 8,235
BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB)
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
044 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE 21,966 30,000 51,966
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
..................... Industrial Base [30,000]
Innovation Fund.
045 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES 24,662 24,662
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
046 0603711D8Z JOINT ROBOTICS PROGRAM/ 0 0
AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS.
047 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D 24,605 24,605
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
048 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND 30,678 30,678
DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE
TECHNOLOGY.
049 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL 65,282 65,282
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
050 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS 72,234 -3,000 69,234
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
AND SUPPORT.
..................... DMEA upgrade reduction [-3,000]
051 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM 8,403 8,403
052 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 111,008 111,008
TECHNOLOGIES.
053 0603755D8Z HIGH PERFORMANCE 0 0
COMPUTING MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
054 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND 237,859 237,859
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
055 0603765E CLASSIFIED DARPA PROGRAMS 3,000 3,000
056 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE 236,883 236,883
TECHNOLOGY.
057 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY........ 299,438 299,438
058 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING 12,195 12,195
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
059 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 30,036 30,036
INSTITUTE.
060 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL 107,002 107,002
PROJECTS.
061 0603828D8Z JOINT EXPERIMENTATION.... 0 0
062 0603828J JOINT EXPERIMENTATION.... 21,230 21,230
063 0603832D8Z DOD MODELING AND 47,433 47,433
SIMULATION MANAGEMENT
OFFICE.
064 0603901C DIRECTED ENERGY RESEARCH. 46,944 46,944
065 0603902C NEXT GENERATION AEGIS 224,077 224,077
MISSILE.
066 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE 92,602 92,602
& TECHNOLOGY.
067 0603942D8Z TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER...... 0 0
068 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY 26,244 26,244
CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
069 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS............. 53,946 53,946
070 1160402BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 45,317 45,317
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
071 1160422BB AVIATION ENGINEERING 861 861
ANALYSIS.
072 1160472BB SOF INFORMATION AND 4,959 4,959
BROADCAST SYSTEMS
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 3,194,413 15,700 3,210,113
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
(ATD).
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT 3,194,413 15,700 3,210,113
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES.
073 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 33,234 33,234
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
074 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH............ 21,023 21,023
075 0603600D8Z WALKOFF.................. 94,624 94,624
076 0603709D8Z JOINT ROBOTICS PROGRAM... 0 0
077 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSOR 16,958 2,000 18,958
APPLICATIONS PROGRAM.
..................... Reverse cuts to [2,000]
testing.
078 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 75,941 75,941
TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM.
079 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 316,929 316,929
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
080 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 903,172 903,172
MIDCOURSE DEFENSE
SEGMENT.
081 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 179,023 179,023
DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL.
082 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 347,012 347,012
SENSORS.
083 0603888C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 0 0
TEST & TARGETS.
084 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS.... 362,711 362,711
085 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA.... 272,387 272,387
086 0603892C AEGIS BMD................ 992,407 992,407
087 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & 51,313 51,313
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
088 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 6,912 6,912
SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
089 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 366,552 366,552
COMMAND AND CONTROL,
BATTLE MANAGEMENT &
COMMUNICATION.
090 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 55,550 55,550
JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
091 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE 63,043 63,043
INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS
CENTER (MDIOC).
092 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH......... 11,371 11,371
093 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR 9,730 9,730
(SBX).
094 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 99,836 310,000 409,836
PROGRAMS.
..................... Arrow Weapon System [20,000]
improvements.
..................... Arrow-3 interceptor... [20,000]
..................... David's Sling short- [60,000]
range BMD.
..................... Iron Dome short-range [210,000]
rocket defense.
095 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 454,400 454,400
TEST.
096 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 435,747 435,747
TARGETS.
097 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING.... 13,231 13,231
098 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE........ 11,398 11,398
099 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,283 20,800 24,083
CORROSION PROGRAM.
..................... Increase for [20,800]
requirements shortfall.
100 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 12,368 12,368
(DOD) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SYSTEM (UAS) COMMON
DEVELOPMENT.
101 0604670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE 5,131 5,131
BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB)
RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING.
102 0604775D8Z DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION 0 200,000 200,000
PROGRAM.
..................... Rapid Innovation [200,000]
Program.
103 0604787D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 0 0
COMMAND (JSIC).
104 0604787J JOINT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 3,273 3,273
105 0604828D8Z JOINT FIRES INTEGRATION 0 0
AND INTEROPERABILITY
TEAM.
106 0604828J JOINT FIRES INTEGRATION 7,364 7,364
AND INTEROPERABILITY
TEAM.
107 0604880C LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3).. 276,338 276,338
108 0604881C AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO- 420,630 420,630
DEVELOPMENT.
109 0604883C PRECISION TRACKING SPACE 297,375 297,375
SENSOR RDT&E.
110 0604884C AIRBORNE INFRARED (ABIR). 0 0
111 0604886C ADVANCED REMOTE SENSOR 58,742 58,742
TECHNOLOGY (ARST).
112 0605017D8Z REDUCTION OF TOTAL 0 0
OWNERSHIP COST.
113 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC 3,158 3,158
TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM.
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 6,282,166 532,800 6,814,966
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION (SDD)
114 0604051D8Z DEFENSE ACQUISITION 0 0
CHALLENGE PROGRAM (DACP).
115 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 6,817 6,817
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD.
116 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE 110,383 110,383
CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
117 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 311,071 311,071
DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
118 0604709D8Z JOINT ROBOTICS PROGRAM-- 0 0
EMD.
119 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES 25,787 25,787
JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE
(AITS-JPO).
120 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL 20,688 20,688
INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM (JTIDS).
121 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS 5,749 5,749
DESTRUCTION DEFEAT
CAPABILITIES.
122 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 12,699 12,699
DEVELOPMENT.
123 0605018BTA DEFENSE INTEGRATED 0 0
MILITARY HUMAN RESOURCES
SYSTEM (DIMHRS).
124 0605020BTA BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION 0 0
AGENCY R&D ACTIVITIES.
125 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL 387 387
SECURITY INITIATIVE.
126 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY 1,859 1,859
PROGRAM.
127 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT 7,010 7,010
INITIATIVES.
128 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 133,104 133,104
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
129 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND 25,269 25,269
INTEGRATION.
130 0605140D8Z TRUSTED FOUNDRY.......... 0 0
131 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC 10,238 10,238
PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES.
132 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 19,670 19,670
SYSTEM.
133 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY 3,556 3,556
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
(EEIM).
134 0807708D8Z WOUNDED ILL AND INJURED 0 0
SENIOR OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE (WII-SOC)
STAFF OFFICE.
..................... SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM 694,287 0 694,287
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION (SDD).
.....................
..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
135 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS 6,383 6,383
REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS).
136 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS 3,845 3,845
ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT.
137 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND 144,109 144,109
EVALUATION INVESTMENT
DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP).
138 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND 2,419 2,419
EVALUATIONS.
139 0604943D8Z THERMAL VICAR............ 8,214 8,214
140 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT 19,380 19,380
TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC).
141 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, 32,266 32,266
SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS.
142 0605110D8Z USD(A&T)--CRITICAL 840 840
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
143 0605117D8Z FOREIGN MATERIEL 56,012 56,012
ACQUISITION AND
EXPLOITATION.
144 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND 55,508 55,508
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO).
145 0605128D8Z CLASSIFIED PROGRAM USD(P) 0 0
146 0605130D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE 18,174 18,174
TESTING.
147 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING...... 43,195 43,195
148 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 6,457 6,457
SUPPORT--OSD.
149 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL 4,901 4,901
SECURITY.
150 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND 6,307 6,307
INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
151 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD 6,601 6,601
(INTELLIGENCE).
152 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 92,849 92,849
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
153 0605502BR SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION 0 0
RESEARCH.
154 0605502C SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE 0 0
RESEARCH--MDA.
155 0605502D8W SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE 0 0
RESEARCH.
156 0605502D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE 0 0
RESEARCH.
157 0605502E SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE 0 0
RESEARCH.
158 0605502S SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE 0 0
RESEARCH.
159 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION 1,857 1,857
RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL
BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER (S.
160 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 12,056 12,056
ANALYSIS.
161 0605799D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES.... 0 0
162 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL 55,454 55,454
INFORMATION CENTER
(DTIC).
163 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD 16,364 16,364
ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND
EVALUATION.
164 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND 15,110 5,000 20,110
EVALUATION.
..................... DT&E increase......... [5,000]
165 0605897E DARPA AGENCY RELOCATION.. 0 0
166 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 69,767 69,767
167 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM 4,454 4,454
ASSESSMENTS.
168 0606301D8Z AVIATION SAFETY 0 0
TECHNOLOGIES.
169 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS 2,637 2,637
SECURITY INITIATIVE
(DOSI).
170 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL 0 0
SUPPORT.
173 0303166D8Z SUPPORT TO INFORMATION 0 0
OPERATIONS (IO)
CAPABILITIES.
174 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION 8,238 8,238
OPERATIONS (IO)
CAPABILITIES.
175 0303169D8Z INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 0 0
RAPID ACQUISITION.
176 0305103E CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 1,801 1,801
177 0305193D8Z INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO 16,041 16,041
INFORMATION OPERATIONS
(IO).
179 0305400D8Z WARFIGHTING AND 0 0
INTELLIGENCE-RELATED
SUPPORT.
180 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT 77,475 77,475
AND TRAINING
TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2).
181 0901585C PENTAGON RESERVATION..... 0 0
182 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA....... 34,855 34,855
183 0901598D8W MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS 104 104
WHS.
184 0909999D8Z FINANCING FOR CANCELLED 0 0
ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS.
184A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 64,255 64,255
..................... SUBTOTAL, RDT&E 887,928 5,000 892,928
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
185 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY 8,866 8,866
SYSTEM (ESS).
186 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL 3,238 3,238
OUTREACH (RIO) AND
PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
INFORMATION MGMT.
187 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN 288 288
ASSISTANCE SHARED
INFORMATION SYSTEM
(OHASIS).
188 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 14,745 14,745
DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT).
189 0607828D8Z JOINT INTEGRATION AND 0 0
INTEROPERABILITY.
190 0607828J JOINT INTEGRATION AND 5,013 5,013
INTEROPERABILITY.
191 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID 3,922 3,922
SYSTEM (PDAS).
192 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY..... 72,574 72,574
194 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION 6,214 6,214
INFORMATION SHARING.
201 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND 499 499
SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT.
202 0302019K DEFENSE INFO 14,498 14,498
INFRASTRUCTURE
ENGINEERING AND
INTEGRATION.
203 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS-- 26,164 26,164
DCS.
204 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 12,931 12,931
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK (MEECN).
205 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE 6,296 6,296
(PKI).
206 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT 30,948 30,948
INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI).
207 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS 11,780 11,780
SECURITY PROGRAM.
208 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS 191,452 191,452
SECURITY PROGRAM.
209 0303140K INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 0
SECURITY PROGRAM.
210 0303149J C4I FOR THE WARRIOR...... 0 0
211 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND 36,575 36,575
CONTROL SYSTEM.
212 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM 24,278 24,278
ORGANIZATION.
213 0303170K NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE 2,924 2,924
SERVICES (NCES).
214 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY 1,294 1,294
DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE
(DMDPO).
215 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM......... 6,050 6,050
217 0304210BB SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR 17,058 17,058
CONTINGENCIES.
220 0305103D8Z CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 0 0
222 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 4,189 4,189
223 0305125D8Z CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 10,462 10,462
PROTECTION (CIP).
227 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS...... 6,360 6,360
229 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY........... 21,190 21,190
232 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 7,114 600 7,714
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
..................... USSOCOM UFR........... [600]
235 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 3,247 3,247
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
237 0305219BB MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV...... 1,355 1,355
239 0305231BB MQ-8 UAV................. 0 0
240 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE 2,303 2,303
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
PROGRAM.
241 0305600D8Z INTERNATIONAL 1,478 1,478
INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY
AND ARCHITECTURES.
249 0708011S INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.. 27,044 27,044
250 0708012S LOGISTICS SUPPORT 4,711 4,711
ACTIVITIES.
251 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ--OJCS...... 4,100 4,100
252 1001018D8Z NATO AGS................. 0 0
253 1105219BB MQ-9 UAV................. 3,002 3,002
254 1105232BB RQ-11 UAV................ 0 0
255 1105233BB RQ-7 UAV................. 0 0
256 1160279BB SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE 0 0
RESEARCH/SMALL BUS TECH
TRANSFER PILOT PROG.
257 1160403BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 97,267 97,267
AVIATION SYSTEMS
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
258 1160404BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 821 821
TACTICAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
259 1160405BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 25,935 25,935
INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
260 1160408BB SOF OPERATIONAL 51,700 51,700
ENHANCEMENTS.
261 1160421BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS CV-22 1,822 1,822
DEVELOPMENT.
262 1160427BB MISSION TRAINING AND 10,131 10,131
PREPARATION SYSTEMS
(MTPS).
263 1160429BB AC/MC-130J............... 19,647 19,647
264 1160474BB SOF COMMUNICATIONS 2,225 2,225
EQUIPMENT AND
ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS.
265 1160476BB SOF TACTICAL RADIO 3,036 3,036
SYSTEMS.
266 1160477BB SOF WEAPONS SYSTEMS...... 1,511 1,511
267 1160478BB SOF SOLDIER PROTECTION 4,263 4,263
AND SURVIVAL SYSTEMS.
268 1160479BB SOF VISUAL AUGMENTATION, 4,448 4,448
LASERS AND SENSOR
SYSTEMS.
269 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES.... 11,325 11,325
270 1160481BB SOF MUNITIONS............ 1,515 1,515
271 1160482BB SOF ROTARY WING AVIATION. 24,430 24,430
272 1160483BB SOF UNDERWATER SYSTEMS... 26,405 8,000 34,405
..................... Transfer from PDW Line [8,000]
64 at USSOCOM request.
273 1160484BB SOF SURFACE CRAFT........ 8,573 8,573
274 1160488BB SOF MILITARY INFORMATION 0 0
SUPPORT OPERATIONS.
275 1160489BB SOF GLOBAL VIDEO 7,620 7,620
SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES.
276 1160490BB SOF OPERATIONAL 16,386 16,386
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE.
276A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 3,754,516 3,754,516
..................... SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL 4,667,738 8,600 4,676,338
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... UNDISTRIBUTED
..................... UNDISTRIBUTED............ -100,000 -100,000
..................... DARPA undistributed [-75,000]
reduction.
..................... DARPA classified [-25,000]
programs reduction.
.....................
..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 17,982,161 462,100 18,444,261
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
DEFENSE
..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
001 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND 72,501 4,000 76,501
EVALUATION.
..................... NCR transition........ [4,000]
002 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND 49,201 49,201
EVALUATION.
003 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST 63,566 63,566
ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES.
..................... TOTAL, OPERATIONAL TEST & 185,268 4,000 189,268
EVAL, DEFENSE.
.....................
..................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 69,407,767 -121,549 69,286,218
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 2013 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, ARMY
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
060 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 19,860 19,860
SURVIVABILITY.
...................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 19,860 0 19,860
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 19,860 0 19,860
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, NAVY
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
056 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 4,600 4,600
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
...................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 4,600 0 4,600
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
131 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT...... 2,173 2,173
...................... SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM 2,173 0 2,173
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
......................
...................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
160 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 5,200 5,200
WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
...................... SUBTOTAL, RDT&E 5,200 0 5,200
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
195 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 6,762 6,762
SERVICES SUPPORT.
221 0305233N RQ-7 UAV................. 7,600 7,600
230A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 33,784 33,784
...................... SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL 48,146 0 48,146
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 60,119 0 60,119
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, AF
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
249A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 53,150 53,150
...................... SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL 53,150 0 53,150
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 53,150 0 53,150
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, DW
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
239 0305231BB MQ-8 UAV................. 5,000 5,000
276A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 107,387 107,387
...................... SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL 112,387 0 112,387
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 112,387 0 112,387
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
......................
...................... TOTAL, RESEARCH, 245,516 0 245,516
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 2013 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 1,223,087 1,223,087
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 80,574 80,574
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 723,039 723,039
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 706,974 706,974
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 1,226,650 1,226,650
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 1,319,832 1,319,832
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 3,447,174 3,447,174
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 454,774 454,774
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 1,762,757 1,762,757
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 7,401,613 7,401,613
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 3,041,074 3,041,074
MODERNIZATION..................................
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S................. 410,171 410,171
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 177,819 177,819
140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES........................... 0 0
150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM........... 0 0
160 RESET........................................... 0 0
170 COMBATANT COMMANDERS ANCILLARY MISSIONS......... 461,333 461,333
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 22,436,871 0 22,436,871
MOBILIZATION
180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY.............................. 405,496 405,496
190 ARMY PREPOSITIONING STOCKS...................... 195,349 195,349
200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS......................... 6,379 6,379
SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION.......................... 607,224 0 607,224
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
210 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 112,866 112,866
220 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 73,265 73,265
230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING....................... 51,227 51,227
240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.......... 443,306 443,306
250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 1,099,556 1,099,556
260 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 1,130,627 1,130,627
270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 191,683 191,683
280 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 652,095 652,095
290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 507,510 507,510
300 EXAMINING....................................... 156,964 156,964
310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 244,343 244,343
320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 212,477 212,477
330 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 182,691 182,691
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING............... 5,058,610 0 5,058,610
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 601,331 601,331
360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES....................... 741,324 741,324
370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES..................... 610,136 610,136
380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT........................... 478,707 478,707
390 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 556,307 -17,200 539,107
GFEBS realignment per Army request........... [-17,200]
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 1,547,925 1,547,925
410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 362,205 362,205
420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 220,754 220,754
430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT........................... 1,153,556 -8,100 1,145,456
Decrease for ahead of need request........... [-8,100]
440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES.......................... 250,970 250,970
450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 222,351 222,351
460 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 222,379 222,379
470 SUPPORT OF NATO OPERATIONS...................... 459,710 459,710
480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS.................. 25,637 25,637
490 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,052,595 1,052,595
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES............ 8,505,887 -25,300 8,480,587
UNDISTRIBUTED
UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -120,000 -120,000
Unobligated balances......................... [-120,000]
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY............ 36,608,592 -145,300 36,463,292
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 4,918,144 4,918,144
020 FLEET AIR TRAINING.............................. 1,886,825 1,886,825
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES.. 44,032 44,032
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 101,565 101,565
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT............................. 374,827 374,827
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 960,802 960,802
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 37,545 37,545
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 328,805 328,805
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 4,686,535 4,686,535
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 769,204 769,204
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 5,089,981 5,089,981
120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 1,315,366 1,315,366
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 619,909 619,909
140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE.............................. 92,364 92,364
150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE.................. 174,437 174,437
160 WARFARE TACTICS................................. 441,035 441,035
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY........ 333,554 333,554
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 910,087 910,087
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE........................... 167,158 167,158
200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT........................ 4,183 4,183
210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 95,528 95,528
220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 204,569 204,569
230 CRUISE MISSILE.................................. 111,884 111,884
240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE......................... 1,181,038 1,181,038
250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.............. 87,606 87,606
260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 519,583 519,583
270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................... 300,435 300,435
280 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.......................... 1,077,924 1,077,924
290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 2,101,279 2,101,279
300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 4,822,093 4,822,093
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 33,758,297 0 33,758,297
MOBILIZATION
310 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE................... 334,659 334,659
320 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.............. 6,562 6,562
330 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.................. 1,066,329 1,066,329
340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS........... 83,901 83,901
350 INDUSTRIAL READINESS............................ 2,695 2,695
360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT............................. 23,502 23,502
SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION.......................... 1,517,648 0 1,517,648
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
370 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 147,807 147,807
380 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 10,473 10,473
390 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS................. 139,220 139,220
400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 582,177 582,177
410 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 5,456 5,456
420 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 170,746 170,746
430 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 153,403 153,403
440 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 241,329 241,329
450 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 108,226 108,226
460 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 105,776 105,776
470 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 51,817 51,817
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING............... 1,716,430 0 1,716,430
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
480 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 797,177 797,177
490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.............................. 12,872 12,872
500 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 120,181 120,181
510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 235,753 235,753
520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 263,060 263,060
530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 363,213 363,213
540 MEDICAL ACTIVITIES.............................. 0 0
550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 182,343 182,343
560 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS.......................... 0 0
570 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN................ 282,464 282,464
580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 1,092,123 1,092,123
590 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT......... 53,560 53,560
600 COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS.......................... 25,299 25,299
610 SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS............ 64,418 64,418
620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE..................... 580,042 580,042
680 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES......... 4,984 4,984
690 CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS................... 0 0
700 JUDGEMENT FUND.................................. 0 0
710 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 537,079 537,079
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 4,614,568 0 4,614,568
UNDISTRIBUTED
UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -23,000 -23,000
Unobligated balances......................... [-23,000]
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY............ 41,606,943 -23,000 41,583,943
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 788,055 788,055
020 FIELD LOGISTICS................................. 762,614 762,614
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 168,447 168,447
040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING......................... 100,374 100,374
050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION........ 825,039 825,039
060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 2,188,883 2,188,883
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 4,833,412 0 4,833,412
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
070 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 18,251 18,251
080 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 869 869
090 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 80,914 80,914
100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 42,744 42,744
110 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 292,150 292,150
120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 168,609 168,609
130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 56,865 56,865
140 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 19,912 19,912
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING............... 680,314 0 680,314
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 39,962 39,962
170 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 83,404 83,404
180 CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENT.................... 0 0
190 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 346,071 346,071
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 469,437 0 469,437
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS.... 5,983,163 0 5,983,163
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 2,973,141 2,973,141
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES....................... 1,611,032 1,611,032
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS).. 1,472,806 1,472,806
040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 5,545,470 5,545,470
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 1,353,987 1,353,987
MODERNIZATION..................................
060 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 2,595,032 2,595,032
070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING.................... 957,040 957,040
080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS................... 916,200 916,200
090 JCS EXERCISES................................... 0 0
100 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES..... 733,716 733,716
110 LAUNCH FACILITIES............................... 314,490 314,490
120 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS........................... 488,762 488,762
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 862,979 862,979
140 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 222,429 222,429
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 20,047,084 0 20,047,084
MOBILIZATION
150 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.............................. 1,785,379 1,785,379
160 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS....................... 154,049 154,049
170 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,477,396 1,477,396
180 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 309,699 309,699
MODERNIZATION..................................
190 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 707,574 707,574
SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION.......................... 4,434,097 0 4,434,097
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
200 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 115,427 115,427
210 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 17,619 17,619
220 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).......... 92,949 92,949
230 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 336,433 336,433
MODERNIZATION..................................
240 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 842,441 842,441
250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 482,634 482,634
260 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 750,609 750,609
270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 235,114 235,114
280 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 101,231 101,231
290 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 233,330 233,330
300 JUDGEMENT FUND.................................. 0 0
310 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 130,217 130,217
320 EXAMINING....................................... 2,738 2,738
330 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 155,170 155,170
340 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 175,147 175,147
350 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 74,809 74,809
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING............... 3,745,868 0 3,745,868
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
360 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS............................ 1,029,734 1,029,734
370 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.................... 913,843 913,843
390 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 303,610 303,610
MODERNIZATION..................................
400 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 1,266,800 1,266,800
410 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 587,654 587,654
420 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 667,910 667,910
430 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.................... 1,094,509 1,094,509
440 CIVIL AIR PATROL................................ 23,904 23,904
450 JUDGEMENT FUND REIMBURSEMENT.................... 0 0
470 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT........................... 81,307 81,307
480 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,239,040 1,239,040
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 7,208,311 0 7,208,311
UNDISTRIBUTED
UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -32,000 -32,000
Unobligated balances......................... [-32,000]
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE....... 35,435,360 -32,000 35,403,360
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF........................... 485,708 485,708
020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND...................... 0 5,107,501 5,107,501
Transfer from Line 025....................... [5,091,001]
USSOCOM UFR.................................. [16,500]
025 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 5,091,001 -5,091,001 0
Transfer to Line 020......................... [-5,091,001]
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 5,576,709 16,500 5,593,209
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
030 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY.................. 147,210 147,210
040 NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY..................... 84,999 84,999
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING............... 232,209 0 232,209
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
050 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS......................... 161,294 161,294
070 DEFENSE BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION AGENCY.......... 0 0
080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY................... 573,973 573,973
090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.............. 1,293,196 1,293,196
100 DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE.......... 17,513 17,513
110 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY................ 676,186 676,186
120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.............. 1,346,847 1,346,847
140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY................... 35,137 35,137
150 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY........................ 431,893 431,893
160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.......................... 224,013 224,013
170 DEFENSE POW/MIA OFFICE.......................... 21,964 21,964
180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY............. 557,917 -17,600 540,317
Program decrease--Defense Security Assessment [-2,600]
Program decrease--Global Train and Equip..... [-15,000]
190 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE........................ 506,662 506,662
Transfer from Line 280....................... [506,662]
200 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...... 35,319 35,319
210 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY................. 443,382 443,382
Transfer from Line 280....................... [443,382]
220 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY........ 2,744,971 2,744,971
230 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.......................... 259,975 259,975
250 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT................... 253,437 -139,400 114,037
Decrease for ahead of need request........... [-139,400]
260 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 2,095,362 2,095,362
270 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICE................. 521,297 521,297
280 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 14,933,801 -775,044 14,158,757
Transfer to Line 190......................... [-506,662]
Transfer to Line 210......................... [-443,382]
Commercial imagery service level agreement... [125,000]
Additional ISR Support to Operation Observant [50,000]
Compass......................................
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 26,184,095 -157,000 26,202,095
UNDISTRIBUTED
UNDISTRIBUTED................................... 5,000 5,000
Unobligated balances......................... [-25,000]
Impact aid for schools with military [25,000]
dependent students...........................
Impact aid for children with severe [5,000]
disabilities.................................
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.... 31,993,013 39,500 32,032,513
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 1,391 1,391
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 20,889 20,889
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 592,724 592,724
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 114,983 114,983
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 633,091 633,091
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 76,823 76,823
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 481,997 481,997
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 70,118 70,118
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 141,205 141,205
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 561,878 561,878
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 287,399 287,399
MODERNIZATION..................................
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S................. 52,431 52,431
130 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES........................... 0 0
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 3,034,929 0 3,034,929
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
140 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 12,995 12,995
150 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 32,432 32,432
160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 4,895 4,895
170 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 16,074 16,074
180 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 60,683 60,683
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 127,079 0 127,079
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES........ 3,162,008 0 3,162,008
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 616,776 616,776
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE........................ 15,076 15,076
030 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 1,479 1,479
040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 107,251 107,251
050 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 355 355
060 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 82,186 82,186
070 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 589 589
080 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 48,593 48,593
090 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 15,274 15,274
100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 124,917 124,917
110 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 1,978 1,978
120 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.......................... 43,699 43,699
130 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 60,646 60,646
140 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 105,227 105,227
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 1,224,046 0 1,224,046
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 3,117 3,117
160 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 14,337 14,337
170 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 2,392 2,392
180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 3,090 3,090
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 22,936 0 22,936
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES........ 1,246,982 0 1,246,982
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES................................ 89,690 89,690
020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 16,735 16,735
030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 37,913 37,913
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 103,746 103,746
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 248,084 0 248,084
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 873 873
060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 14,330 14,330
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 8,998 8,998
080 CANCELLED ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENT.................... 0 0
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 24,201 0 24,201
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE...... 272,285 0 272,285
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 2,089,326 2,089,326
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 112,992 112,992
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 406,101 406,101
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 71,564 71,564
MODERNIZATION..................................
050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 364,862 364,862
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 3,044,845 0 3,044,845
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 78,824 78,824
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 16,020 16,020
080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC).......... 19,496 19,496
090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)............ 6,489 6,489
100 AUDIOVISUAL..................................... 808 808
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 121,637 0 121,637
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE...... 3,166,482 0 3,166,482
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 680,206 680,206
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 186,408 186,408
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 865,628 865,628
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 112,651 112,651
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 36,091 36,091
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 907,011 907,011
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 751,606 751,606
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 60,043 60,043
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 411,940 411,940
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 995,423 995,423
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 688,189 688,189
MODERNIZATION..................................
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S................. 953,716 953,716
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 6,648,912 0 6,648,912
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 11,806 11,806
140 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 1,656 1,656
150 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 89,358 89,358
160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 39,513 39,513
170 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 7,224 7,224
180 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 310,143 310,143
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 459,700 0 459,700
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG............ 7,108,612 0 7,108,612
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS............................. 3,559,824 3,559,824
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 721,225 721,225
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 774,875 774,875
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 270,709 270,709
MODERNIZATION..................................
050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 624,443 624,443
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 5,951,076 0 5,951,076
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 32,358 32,358
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 32,021 32,021
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 64,379 0 64,379
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG............. 6,015,455 0 6,015,455
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, 13,516 13,516
DEFENSE........................................
040 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD............................ 274,198 274,198
020 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID... 108,759 108,759
030 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION.................... 519,111 519,111
050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY................. 335,921 335,921
060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY................. 310,594 310,594
070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE............ 529,263 529,263
080 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE.............. 11,133 11,133
090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES... 237,543 237,543
TOTAL, MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS............. 2,340,038 0 2,340,038
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.................. 174,938,933 -160,800 174,778,133
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 2,758,162 2,758,162
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 991,396 991,396
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 40,300 40,300
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 1,755,445 1,755,445
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 307,244 307,244
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 393,165 393,165
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 250,000 250,000
MODERNIZATION..................................
140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES........................... 12,524,137 12,524,137
150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM........... 400,000 -200,000 200,000
Program decrease............................. [-200,000]
160 RESET........................................... 3,687,973 3,687,973
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 23,107,822 -200,000 22,907,822
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 3,238,310 3,238,310
360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES....................... 129,000 129,000
380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT........................... 78,022 78,022
420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 137,277 -40,000 97,277
Transfer to OPA OCO Line 061 at SOUTHCOM [-40,000]
request......................................
430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT........................... 72,293 72,293
490 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,828,717 1,828,717
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES............ 5,483,619 -40,000 5,443,619
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY............ 28,591,441 -240,000 28,351,441
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 937,098 937,098
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES.. 1,000 1,000
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 15,794 15,794
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT............................. 19,013 19,013
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 201,912 201,912
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 3,000 3,000
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 44,150 44,150
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 463,738 463,738
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 24,774 24,774
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 1,310,010 1,310,010
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 42,965 42,965
160 WARFARE TACTICS................................. 25,970 25,970
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY........ 19,226 19,226
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 1,668,359 1,668,359
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE........................... 7,954 7,954
250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.............. 94,655 94,655
260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 303,087 303,087
290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 3,218 3,218
300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 143,442 143,442
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 5,329,365 0 5,329,365
MOBILIZATION
340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS........... 31,395 31,395
360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT............................. 254,461 254,461
SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION.......................... 285,856 0 285,856
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 50,903 50,903
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING............... 50,903 0 50,903
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
480 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 1,377 1,377
490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.............................. 487 487
510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 6,022 6,022
520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 3,514 3,514
550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 184,864 184,864
580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 2,026 2,026
620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE..................... 1,425 1,425
710 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 14,556 14,556
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 214,271 0 214,271
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY............ 5,880,395 0 5,880,395
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 1,921,258 1,921,258
020 FIELD LOGISTICS................................. 1,094,028 1,094,028
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 222,824 222,824
060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 88,690 88,690
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 3,326,800 0 3,326,800
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
110 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 215,212 215,212
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING............... 215,212 0 215,212
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 512,627 512,627
190 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 11,701 11,701
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 524,328 0 524,328
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS.... 4,066,340 0 4,066,340
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 1,494,144 1,494,144
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES....................... 809,531 809,531
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS).. 13,095 13,095
040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,403,238 1,403,238
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 155,954 155,954
MODERNIZATION..................................
060 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 342,226 342,226
070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING.................... 15,108 15,108
080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS................... 271,390 271,390
100 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES..... 25,400 25,400
120 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS........................... 5,110 5,110
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 52,173 52,173
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 4,587,369 0 4,587,369
MOBILIZATION
150 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.............................. 3,187,211 3,187,211
160 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS....................... 43,509 43,509
170 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 554,943 554,943
180 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 4,431 4,431
MODERNIZATION..................................
190 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 9,256 9,256
SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION.......................... 3,799,350 0 3,799,350
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
230 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 424 424
MODERNIZATION..................................
240 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 1,036 1,036
250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 10,923 10,923
260 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 72 72
270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 323 323
280 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 352 352
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING............... 13,130 0 13,130
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
360 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS............................ 100,429 100,429
390 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 47,200 47,200
MODERNIZATION..................................
400 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 7,242 7,242
410 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 1,552 1,552
420 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 82,094 82,094
430 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.................... 582,977 582,977
480 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 20,270 20,270
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 841,764 0 841,764
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE....... 9,241,613 0 9,241,613
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF........................... 2,000 2,000
020 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND...................... 2,503,060 2,503,060
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 2,505,060 0 2,505,060
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
080 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY................... 30,674 30,674
090 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.............. 69,803 69,803
110 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY................ 3,334 3,334
120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.............. 152,925 152,925
140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY................... 102,322 102,322
160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.......................... 10,823 10,823
180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY............. 2,200,000 2,200,000
220 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY........ 139,830 139,830
260 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 87,805 87,805
280 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 2,522,003 2,522,003
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 5,319,519 0 5,319,519
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.... 7,824,579 0 7,824,579
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 78,600 78,600
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 20,811 20,811
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 20,726 20,726
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 34,400 34,400
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 154,537 0 154,537
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES........ 154,537 0 154,537
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 24,834 24,834
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE........................ 300 300
040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 13,364 13,364
060 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 8,213 8,213
080 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 929 929
100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 8,244 8,244
140 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 40 40
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 55,924 0 55,924
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES........ 55,924 0 55,924
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES................................ 22,657 22,657
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 2,820 2,820
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 25,477 0 25,477
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE...... 25,477 0 25,477
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 7,600 7,600
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 106,768 106,768
050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 6,250 6,250
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 120,618 0 120,618
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE...... 120,618 0 120,618
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 38,485 38,485
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 1,959 1,959
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 20,076 20,076
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 2,028 2,028
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 183,811 183,811
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 43,780 43,780
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 70,237 70,237
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S................. 20,072 20,072
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 380,448 0 380,448
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 2,000 2,000
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES.............. 2,000 0 2,000
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG............ 382,448 0 382,448
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 19,975 19,975
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES...................... 19,975 0 19,975
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG............. 19,975 0 19,975
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
010 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 2,523,825 2,523,825
020 INFRASTRUCTURE.................................. 190,000 190,000
030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION.................... 241,521 241,521
040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 758,380 758,380
SUBTOTAL, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE................... 3,713,726 0 3,713,726
MINISTRY OF INTERIOR
050 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 1,305,950 1,305,950
060 INFRASTRUCTURE.................................. 50,000 50,000
070 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION.................... 84,859 84,859
080 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 569,868 569,868
SUBTOTAL, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR.................. 2,010,677 0 2,010,677
RELATED ACTIVITIES
090 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 18,325 18,325
100 INFRASTRUCTUE................................... 1,200 1,200
110 EQUIPMENT & TRANSPORTATION...................... 1,239 1,239
120 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 4,000 4,000
SUBTOTAL, RELATED ACTIVITIES.................... 24,764 0 24,764
TOTAL, AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND......... 5,749,167 0 5,749,167
AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND
010 POWER........................................... 400,000 -50,000 350,000
Program decrease............................. [-50,000]
TOTAL, AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND.......... 400,000 -50,000 350,000
TOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.................. 62,512,514 -290,000 62,222,514
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL.................................. 135,111,799 6,000 135,117,799
BAH for Full-time Guard Transition to Active Duty [6,000]
TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL........................... 135,111,799 6,000 135,117,799
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2013 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL.................................. 14,060,094 14,060,094
TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL........................... 14,060,094 0 14,060,094
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
010 PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS................ 60,037 60,037
TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............... 60,037 0 60,037
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
010 C-17 CLS ENGINE REPAIR.......................... 0 0
020 TRANSPORTATION FALLEN HEROES.................... 0 0
040 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS (MEDICAL/DENTAL)......... 45,452 45,452
TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE.......... 45,452 0 45,452
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
010 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA).................. 39,135 39,135
TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE....... 39,135 0 39,135
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
010 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA...................... 1,371,560 1,371,560
TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............... 1,371,560 0 1,371,560
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
010 T-AKE........................................... 0 0
020 MPF MLP......................................... 38,000 38,000
030 POST DELIVERY AND OUTFITTING.................... 39,386 39,386
040 NATIONAL DEF SEALIFT VESSEL..................... 0 0
050 LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE.................... 128,819 128,819
060 DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS.................... 26,598 26,598
070 TAH MAINTENANCE................................. 29,199 29,199
080 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT........................ 42,811 42,811
090 READY RESERVE FORCE............................. 303,323 303,323
100 MARAD SHIP FINANCING GUARANTEE PROGRAM.......... 0 0
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND............ 608,136 0 608,136
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
DHP, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
010 IN-HOUSE CARE................................... 8,625,507 8,625,507
020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE............................. 16,148,263 16,148,263
030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT..................... 2,309,185 2,309,185
040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.......................... 1,465,328 1,465,328
050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES........................... 332,121 332,121
060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING.......................... 722,081 722,081
070 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS.................. 1,746,794 1,746,794
070A UNDISTRIBUTED................................... 452,000 452,000
Restore DOD assumed Savings for TRICARE [452,000]
Proposals....................................
SUBTOTAL, DHP, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.......... 31,349,279 452,000 31,801,279
DHP, RDT&E
080 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.......................... 672,977 672,977
SUBTOTAL, DHP, RDT&E............................ 672,977 0 672,977
DHP, PROCUREMENT
090 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.......................... 506,462 506,462
SUBTOTAL, DHP, PROCUREMENT
TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................... 32,528,718 452,000 32,980,718
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
001 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE......................... 635,843 635,843
002 RDT&E........................................... 647,351 647,351
003 PROCUREMENT..................................... 18,592 18,592
TOTAL, CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION...... 1,301,786 0 1,301,786
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
010 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF.... 889,545 -25,900 863,645
Transfer to Demand Reduction Program......... [-25,900]
020 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM................... 109,818 25,900 135,718
Expanded drug testing........................ [25,900]
TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 999,363 0 999,363
DEF............................................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
010 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE......................... 272,821 59,100 331,921
DoD IG growth plan........................... [59,100]
020 RDT&E........................................... 0 0
030 PROCUREMENT..................................... 1,000 1,000
TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.......... 273,821 59,100 332,921
TOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................... 37,228,008 511,100 37,739,108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
010 PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS................ 42,600 42,600
TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............... 42,600 0 42,600
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
010 C-17 CLS ENGINE REPAIR.......................... 230,400 230,400
020 TRANSPORTATION FALLEN HEROES.................... 10,000 10,000
TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE.......... 240,400 0 240,400
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
010 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA).................. 220,364 220,364
TOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE....... 220,364 0 220,364
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
DHP, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
010 IN-HOUSE CARE................................... 483,326 483,326
020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE............................. 376,982 376,982
030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT..................... 111,675 111,675
040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.......................... 4,773 4,773
050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES........................... 660 660
060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING.......................... 15,370 15,370
070 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS.................. 1,112 1,112
SUBTOTAL, DHP, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................... 993,898 0 993,898
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
010 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF.... 469,025 469,025
TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 469,025 0 469,025
DEF............................................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
010 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE......................... 10,766 10,766
TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.......... 10,766 0 10,766
TOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................... 1,977,053 0 1,977,053
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMY Milcon ....................... .......................
ARMY ALASKA FORT WAINWRIGHT Modified Record Fire Range. 10,400 10,400
ARMY ALASKA Joint Base Elmendorf- Modified Record Fire Range. 7,900 7,900
Richardson
ARMY CALIFORNIA CONCORD Lightning Protection System 5,800 5,800
ARMY CALIFORNIA CONCORD Engineering/Housing 3,100 3,100
Maintenance Shop.
ARMY COLORADO FORT CARSON, COLORADO Digital Multipurpose 18,000 18,000
Training Range.
ARMY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FORT MCNAIR Vehicle Storage Building, 7,200 7,200
Installation.
ARMY GEORGIA FORT BENNING Ground Source Heat Transfer 16,000 16,000
System.
ARMY GEORGIA FORT GORDON Modified Record Fire Range. 4,000 4,000
ARMY GEORGIA FORT GORDON Multipurpose Machine Gun 7,100 7,100
Range.
ARMY GEORGIA FORT GORDON Ground Source Heat Transfer 12,200 12,200
System.
ARMY GEORGIA FORT STEWART, GEORGIA Digital Multipurpose 22,000 22,000
Training Range.
ARMY GEORGIA FORT STEWART, GEORGIA Automated Combat Pistol 3,650 3,650
Qual Crse.
ARMY GEORGIA FORT STEWART, GEORGIA Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 24,000 24,000
Complex.
ARMY HAWAII POHAKULOA TRAINING AREA Automated Infantry Platoon 29,000 29,000
Battle Course.
ARMY HAWAII SCHOFIELD BARRACKS Barracks................... 41,000 41,000
ARMY HAWAII SCHOFIELD BARRACKS Barracks................... 55,000 55,000
ARMY HAWAII Wheeler Army Air Field Combat Aviation Brigade 85,000 85,000
Barracks.
ARMY KANSAS FORT RILEY, KANSAS Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 12,200 12,200
Complex.
ARMY KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY Battalion Headquarters 55,000 55,000
Complex.
ARMY KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY Live Fire Exercise 3,800 3,800
Shoothouse.
ARMY KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 23,000 23,000
Complex.
ARMY KENTUCKY FORT KNOX Automated Infantry Squad 6,000 6,000
Battle Course.
ARMY MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD Trainee Barracks Complex 3, 58,000 58,000
Ph 2.
ARMY MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD Vehicle Maintenance Shop... 39,000 39,000
ARMY MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD Battalion Complex 26,000 26,000
Facilities.
ARMY NEW JERSEY PICATINNY ARSENAL Ballistic Evaluation Center 10,200 10,200
ARMY NEW JERSEY Joint Base McGuire-Dix- Flight Equipment Complex... 47,000 47,000
Lakehurst
ARMY NEW YORK FORT DRUM, NEW YORK Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 95,000 95,000
ARMY NEW YORK U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY Cadet Barracks............. 192,000 -192,000 0
ARMY NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG Aerial Gunnery Range....... 42,000 42,000
ARMY NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG Infrastructure............. 30,000 -30,000 0
ARMY NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 26,000 26,000
Complex.
ARMY OKLAHOMA FORT SILL Modified Record Fire Range. 4,900 4,900
ARMY SOUTH CAROLINA FORT JACKSON Trainee Barracks Complex 2, 24,000 24,000
Ph 2.
ARMY TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI Aircraft Component 13,200 13,200
Maintenance Shop.
ARMY TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI Aircraft Paint Shop........ 24,000 24,000
ARMY TEXAS FORT BLISS Multipurpose Machine Gun 7,200 7,200
Range.
ARMY TEXAS FORT HOOD, TEXAS Modified Record Fire Range. 4,200 4,200
ARMY TEXAS FORT HOOD, TEXAS Training Aids Center....... 25,000 25,000
ARMY TEXAS FORT HOOD, TEXAS Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 22,000 22,000
Complex.
ARMY TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Barracks................... 21,000 21,000
ARMY VIRGINIA ARLINGTON Cemetery Expansion 84,000 -84,000 0
Millennium Site.
ARMY VIRGINIA FORT BELVOIR Secure Admin/Operations 94,000 94,000
Facility.
ARMY VIRGINIA FORT LEE Adv Individual Training 81,000 81,000
Barracks Cplx, Ph2.
ARMY WASHINGTON YAKIMA Convoy Live Fire Range..... 5,100 5,100
ARMY WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis- Battalion Complex.......... 73,000 73,000
McChord
ARMY WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis- Waste Water Treatment Plant 91,000 91,000
McChord
ARMY ITALY CAMP EDERLE Barracks................... 36,000 36,000
ARMY ITALY VICENZA Simulations Center......... 32,000 32,000
ARMY JAPAN OKINAWA Satellite Communications 78,000 78,000
Facility.
ARMY JAPAN SAGAMI Vehicle Maintenance Shop... 18,000 18,000
ARMY KOREA CAMP HUMPHREYS Battalion Headquarters 45,000 45,000
Complex.
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Minor Construction FY 13... 25,000 25,000
LOCATIONS
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Host Nation Support FY 13.. 34,000 34,000
LOCATIONS
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Planning and Design FY13... 65,173 -19,000 46,173
LOCATIONS
Milcon, A--SUBTOTAL 1,923,323 -325,000 1,598,323
....................... .......................
NAVY Milcon ....................... .......................
NAVY ARIZONA YUMA Security Operations Complex 13,300 13,300
NAVY ARIZONA YUMA Combat Aircraft Loading 15,985 15,985
Apron.
NAVY CALIFORNIA CAMP PENDLETON, Comm. Information Systems 78,897 78,897
CALIFORNIA Ops Complex.
NAVY CALIFORNIA CAMP PENDLETON, San Jacinto Road Extension. 5,074 5,074
CALIFORNIA
NAVY CALIFORNIA CAMP PENDLETON, MV22 Aviation Simulator 4,139 4,139
CALIFORNIA Building.
NAVY CALIFORNIA VENTURA COUNTY BAMS Maintenance Training 14,843 -2,053 12,790
Facility.
NAVY CALIFORNIA MIRAMAR Hangar 5 Renovations & 27,897 27,897
Addition.
NAVY CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO Entry Control Point (Gate 11,752 11,752
Five).
NAVY CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO LCS Training Facility...... 59,436 59,436
NAVY CALIFORNIA SEAL BEACH Strategic Systems Weapons 30,594 30,594
Eval. Test Lab.
NAVY CALIFORNIA TWENTYNINE PALMS, Land Expansion Phase 2..... 47,270 47,270
CALIFORNIA
NAVY CALIFORNIA CORONADO Bachelor Quarters.......... 76,063 76,063
NAVY CALIFORNIA CORONADO H-60S Simulator Training 2,478 2,478
Facility.
NAVY FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE BAMS Mission Control 21,980 21,980
Complex.
NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY MV-22 Hangar and 82,630 82,630
Infrastructure.
NAVY HAWAII KANEOHE BAY Aircraft Staging Area...... 14,680 14,680
NAVY MISSISSIPPI MERIDIAN Dining Facility............ 10,926 10,926
NAVY NEW JERSEY EARLE Combat System Engineering 33,498 33,498
Building Addition.
NAVY NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH Staff NCO Academy 28,986 28,986
CAROLINA Facilities.
NAVY NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH Base Access and Road--Phase 40,904 40,904
CAROLINA 3.
NAVY NORTH CAROLINA CHERRY POINT MARINE Marine Air Support Squadron 34,310 34,310
CORPS AIR STATION Compound.
NAVY NORTH CAROLINA CHERRY POINT MARINE Armory..................... 11,581 11,581
CORPS AIR STATION
NAVY NORTH CAROLINA NEW RIVER Personnel Administration 8,525 8,525
Center.
NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT Ground Support Equipment 9,465 9,465
Shop.
NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT Simulated LHD Flight Deck.. 12,887 12,887
NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT Recycling/Hazardous Waste 3,743 3,743
Facility.
NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 42,010 42,010
NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT Airfield Security Upgrades. 13,675 13,675
NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA PARRIS ISLAND Front Gate ATFP 10,135 10,135
Improvements.
NAVY VIRGINIA DAHLGREN Cruiser/Destroyer Upgrade 16,494 16,494
Training Facility.
NAVY VIRGINIA DAHLGREN Physical Fitness Center.... 11,734 11,734
NAVY VIRGINIA OCEANA NAVAL AIR A School Barracks.......... 39,086 39,086
STATION
NAVY VIRGINIA PORTSMOUTH Drydock 8 Electrical 32,706 32,706
Distribution Upgrade.
NAVY VIRGINIA QUANTICO The Basic School Student 31,012 31,012
Quarters--Phase 7.
NAVY VIRGINIA QUANTICO Infrastructure--Widen 14,826 14,826
Russell Road.
NAVY VIRGINIA QUANTICO Weapons Training Battalion 12,876 12,876
Mess Hall.
NAVY VIRGINIA YORKTOWN Regimental Headquarters.... 11,015 11,015
NAVY VIRGINIA YORKTOWN Bachelor Enlisted Quarters. 18,422 18,422
NAVY VIRGINIA YORKTOWN Motor Transportation 6,188 6,188
Facility.
NAVY VIRGINIA YORKTOWN Supply Warehouse Facility.. 8,939 8,939
NAVY VIRGINIA YORKTOWN Armory..................... 4,259 4,259
NAVY WASHINGTON WHIDBEY ISLAND EA-18G Flight Simulator 6,272 6,272
Facility.
NAVY WASHINGTON KITSAP Explosives Handling Wharf 280,041 -25,800 254,241
#2 (INC).
NAVY BAHRAIN ISLAND SW ASIA Transient Quarters......... 41,529 41,529
NAVY BAHRAIN ISLAND SW ASIA Combined Dining Facility... 9,819 9,819
NAVY DIEGO GARCIA DIEGO GARCIA Communications 1,691 1,691
Infrastructure.
NAVY GREECE SOUDA BAY Aircraft Parking Apron 20,493 20,493
Expansion.
NAVY GREECE SOUDA BAY Intermodal Access Road..... 4,630 4,630
NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas North Ramp Parking 25,904 -25,904 0
(Andersen AFB)--INC 2.
NAVY JAPAN IWAKUNI Maintenance Hangar 5,722 5,722
Improvements.
NAVY JAPAN IWAKUNI Vertical Take-Off and 7,416 7,416
Landing Pad North.
NAVY JAPAN OKINAWA Bachelor Quarters.......... 8,206 8,206
NAVY ROMANIA Deveselu, Romania AEGIS Ashore Missile 45,205 45,205
Defense Complex.
NAVY SPAIN ROTA General Purpose Warehouse.. 3,378 3,378
NAVY SPAIN ROTA High Explosive Magazine.... 13,837 13,837
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE BAMS Operational Facilities 34,048 34,048
LOCATIONS
NAVY DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI Containerized Living and 7,510 7,510
Work Units.
NAVY DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI Galley Addition and 22,220 22,220
Warehouse.
NAVY DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI Joint HQ/Joint Operations 42,730 42,730
Center Facility.
NAVY DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI Fitness Center............. 26,960 26,960
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 16,535 16,535
LOCATIONS Construction.
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MCON Design Funds.......... 102,619 102,619
LOCATIONS
Milcon, N--SUBTOTAL 1,701,985 -53,757 1,648,228
....................... .......................
AF Milcon ....................... .......................
AF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK AFB C-130J Fuel Systems 26,000 26,000
Maintenance Hangar.
AF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK AFB C-130J Flight Simulator 4,178 4,178
Addition.
AF FLORIDA TYNDALL AFB F-22 ADAL Hangar for Low 14,750 14,750
Observable/Composite.
AF GEORGIA FORT STEWART, GEORGIA Air Support Operations 7,250 7,250
Center (ASOC).
AF GEORGIA MOODY AFB HC-130J Simulator Facility. 8,500 8,500
AF NEBRASKA OFFUTT AFB US STRATCOM Replacement 161,000 -33,000 128,000
Facility, Incr 2.
AF NEW MEXICO HOLLOMAN AFB MQ-9 Maintenance Hangar.... 25,000 25,000
AF NORTH DAKOTA MINOT AFB B-52 Add/Alter Munitions 4,600 4,600
AGE Facility.
AF TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Dormitory (144 RM)......... 18,000 18,000
AF UTAH HILL AFB F-35 ADAL Hangar 45W/AMU... 7,250 7,250
AF UTAH HILL AFB F-35 Modular Storage 2,280 2,280
Magazines.
AF UTAH HILL AFB F-35 ADAL Building 118 for 4,000 4,000
Flight Simulator.
AF GREENLAND THULE AB Dormitory (48 PN).......... 24,500 24,500
AF ITALY AVIANO AB F-16 Mission Training 9,400 9,400
Center.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Transient Contingency 17,625 -17,625 0
LOCATIONS Dormitory--100 RM.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Transient Aircraft Hangars. 15,032 -15,032 0
LOCATIONS
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Sanitary Sewer Lift/Pump 2,000 2,000
LOCATIONS Station.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 18,200 18,200
LOCATIONS Construction.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 18,635 18,635
LOCATIONS
Milcon, AF--SUBTOTAL 388,200 -65,657 322,543
....................... .......................
DEF-WIDE Milcon ....................... .......................
DEFW BELGIUM BRUSSELS NATO Headquarters Facility. 26,969 26,969
DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Energy Conservation 150,000 150,000
LOCATIONS Investment Program.
DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Contingency Construction... 10,000 10,000
LOCATIONS
DFAS TEXAS RED RIVER ARMY DEPOT DFAS Facility.............. 16,715 16,715
DISA ILLINOIS SCOTT AFB DISA Facility Upgrades..... 84,111 84,111
DISA GERMANY STUTTGART-PATCH DISA Europe Facility 2,413 2,413
BARRACKS Upgrades.
DLA ARIZONA YUMA Truck Unload Facility...... 1,300 1,300
DLA CALIFORNIA DEF FUEL SUPPORT POINT-- Replace Fuel Pier.......... 91,563 91,563
SAN DIEGO
DLA CALIFORNIA EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE Replace Fuel Storage....... 27,500 27,500
DLA DELAWARE DOVER AFB Replace Truck Off-Load 2,000 2,000
Facility.
DLA FLORIDA HURLBURT FIELD Construct Fuel Storage 16,000 16,000
Facility.
DLA INDIANA GRISSOM ARB Replace Hydrant Fuel System 26,800 26,800
DLA LOUISIANA BARKSDALE AFB Upgrade Pumphouse.......... 11,700 11,700
DLA NORTH CAROLINA SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB Replace Pipeline........... 1,850 1,850
DLA PENNSYLVANIA DEF DIST DEPOT NEW Replace Sewage Treatment 6,300 6,300
CUMBERLAND Plant.
DLA PENNSYLVANIA DEF DIST DEPOT NEW Replace Communications 6,800 6,800
CUMBERLAND Building.
DLA PENNSYLVANIA DEF DIST DEPOT NEW Replace Reservoir.......... 4,300 4,300
CUMBERLAND
DLA GUAM ANDERSEN AFB Upgrade Fuel Pipeline...... 67,500 -67,500 0
DLA GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA GUANTANAMO BAY Replace Truck Load Facility 2,600 2,600
DLA GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA GUANTANAMO BAY Replace Fuel Pier.......... 37,600 37,600
DODEA KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY Replace Barkley Elementary 41,767 41,767
School.
DODEA GERMANY VOGELWEH Replace Vogelweh Elementary 61,415 61,415
School.
DODEA GERMANY WEISBADEN Weisbaden High School 52,178 52,178
Addition.
DODEA JAPAN CAMP ZAMA Renovate Zama High School.. 13,273 13,273
DODEA JAPAN KADENA AB Replace Elementary School.. 71,772 71,772
DODEA JAPAN KADENA AB Replace Stearley Heights 71,773 71,773
Elementary School.
DODEA JAPAN ZUKERAN Replace Zukeran Elementary 79,036 79,036
School.
DODEA JAPAN SASEBO Replace Sasebo Elementary 35,733 35,733
School.
DODEA KOREA OSAN AFB Replace Osan Elementary 42,692 42,692
School.
DODEA UNITED KINGDOM RAF FELTWELL Feltwell Elementary School 30,811 30,811
Addition.
DODEA UNITED KINGDOM MENWITH HILL STATION Replace Menwith Hill 46,488 46,488
Elementary/High School.
MDA NEW YORK FORT DRUM, NEW YORK IDT Complex................ 25,900 25,900
MDA ROMANIA Deveselu, Romania Aegis Ashore Missile 157,900 157,900
Defense System Complex.
NSA COLORADO BUCKLEY AIR FORCE BASE Denver Power House......... 30,000 30,000
NSA MARYLAND FORT MEADE NSAW Recapitalize Building 25,000 25,000
#1/Site M Inc 1.
NSA MARYLAND FORT MEADE High Performance Computing 300,521 -75,000 225,521
Center Inc 2.
NSA UTAH CAMP WILLIAMS IC CNCI Data Center 1 Inc 4 191,414 191,414
NSA UNITED KINGDOM MENWITH HILL STATION MHS Utilities and Roads.... 3,795 3,795
SOCOM CALIFORNIA CORONADO SOF Indoor Dynamic Shooting 31,170 31,170
Facility.
SOCOM CALIFORNIA CORONADO SOF Close Quarters Combat/ 13,969 13,969
Dynamic Shoot Fac.
SOCOM CALIFORNIA CORONADO SOF Mobile Comm Detachment 10,120 10,120
Support Facility.
SOCOM COLORADO FORT CARSON, COLORADO SOF Battalion Operations 56,673 56,673
Complex.
SOCOM FLORIDA EGLIN AFB SOF AVFID Ops and 41,695 41,695
Maintenance Facilities.
SOCOM FLORIDA MACDILL AFB SOF Joint Special Ops 34,409 34,409
University Fac (JSOU).
SOCOM HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- SOF SDVT-1 Waterfront 24,289 24,289
Hickam Operations Facility.
SOCOM KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY SOF Landgraf Hangar 3,559 3,559
Extension.
SOCOM KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY SOF Ground Support 26,313 26,313
Battalion.
SOCOM NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB SOF AC-130J Combat Parking 22,062 22,062
Apron.
SOCOM NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH SOF Marine Battalion 53,399 53,399
CAROLINA Company/Team Facilities.
SOCOM NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH SOF Survival Evasion 5,465 5,465
CAROLINA Resist. Escape Tng Fac.
SOCOM NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF Support Addition....... 3,875 3,875
SOCOM NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF Battalion Operations 40,481 10,000 50,481
Facility.
SOCOM NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF Civil Affairs Battalion 31,373 10,000 41,373
Complex.
SOCOM NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF Sustainment Brigade 24,693 10,000 34,693
Complex.
SOCOM VIRGINIA Joint Exp Base Little SOF Combat Services Support 11,132 11,132
Creek--Story Facility--East.
SOCOM WASHINGTON FORT LEWIS SOF Military Working Dog 3,967 3,967
Kennel.
SOCOM WASHINGTON FORT LEWIS SOF Battalion Operations 46,553 46,553
Facility.
SOCOM CONUS CLASSIFIED CLASSIFIED LOCATION SOF Parachute Training 6,477 6,477
Facility.
SOCOM UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF CV-22 Simulator 6,490 6,490
Facility.
TMA CALIFORNIA TWENTYNINE PALMS, Medical Clinic Replacement. 27,400 27,400
CALIFORNIA
TMA COLORADO PIKES PEAK High Altitude Medical 3,600 3,600
Research Lab.
TMA ILLINOIS GREAT LAKES Drug Laboratory Replacement 28,700 28,700
TMA ILLINOIS SCOTT AFB Medical Logistics Warehouse 2,600 2,600
TMA MARYLAND ANNAPOLIS Health Clinic Replacement.. 66,500 66,500
TMA MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL Temporary Medical 26,600 26,600
Facilities.
TMA MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL Base Installation Access/ 7,000 -7,000 0
Appearance Plan.
TMA MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL Electrical Capacity and 35,600 35,600
Cooling Towers.
TMA MARYLAND FORT DETRICK USAMRIID Stage I, Incr 7... 19,000 19,000
TMA MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD Dental Clinic.............. 18,100 18,100
TMA NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB Medical/Dental Clinic 71,023 71,023
Replacement.
TMA NEW YORK FORT DRUM, NEW YORK Soldier Specialty Care 17,300 17,300
Clinic.
TMA NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH Medical Clinic Replacement. 21,200 21,200
CAROLINA
TMA NORTH CAROLINA SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB Medical Clinic Replacement. 53,600 53,600
TMA SOUTH CAROLINA SHAW AFB Medical Clinic Replacement. 57,200 57,200
TMA TEXAS FORT BLISS Hospital Replacement Incr 4 207,400 -100,000 107,400
TMA TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Ambulatory Care Center 80,700 80,700
Phase 3 Incr.
TMA VIRGINIA NORFOLK Veterinary Facility 8,500 8,500
Replacement.
TMA GERMANY RHINE ORDNANCE BARRACKS Medical Center Replacement 127,000 127,000
Incr 2.
TMA KOREA KUNSAN AIR BASE Medical/Dental Clinic 13,000 13,000
Addition.
TMA KOREA OSAN AFB Hospital Addition/ 34,600 34,600
Alteration.
DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 3,000 3,000
LOCATIONS Construction.
DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED MINOR 7,254 7,254
LOCATIONS CONSTRUCTION.
DODEA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 4,091 4,091
LOCATIONS Construction.
NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Milcon... 3,000 3,000
LOCATIONS
SOCOM WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor Const.... 10,000 10,000
LOCATIONS
TJS WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Exercise Related Minor 6,440 6,440
LOCATIONS Construction.
TMA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Minor Construction......... 5,000 5,000
LOCATIONS
DEFW WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 47,978 47,978
LOCATIONS
DIA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 2,919 2,919
LOCATIONS
DLA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING & DESIGN.......... 5,000 5,000
LOCATIONS
DODEA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 105,569 105,569
LOCATIONS
MDA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 4,548 4,548
LOCATIONS
NSA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 8,300 8,300
LOCATIONS
SOCOM WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 27,620 27,620
LOCATIONS
TMA WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 105,700 105,700
LOCATIONS
WHS WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 7,928 7,928
LOCATIONS
Milcon,Def-Wide--SUBTOTAL 3,654,623 -219,500 3,435,123
Services MILCON--TOTAL 7,668,131 -663,914 7,004,217
....................... .......................
MCon,Army NG ....................... .......................
ARMY, NG ALABAMA FORT MCCLELLAN Live Fire Shoot House...... 5,400 5,400
ARMY, NG ARKANSAS SEARCY Field Maintenance Shop..... 6,800 6,800
ARMY, NG CALIFORNIA FORT IRWIN Maneuver Area Training & 25,000 25,000
Equipment Site Ph3.
ARMY, NG CONNECTICUT CAMP HARTELL Combined Support 32,000 32,000
Maintenance Shop.
ARMY, NG DELAWARE BETHANY BEACH Regional Training Institute 5,500 5,500
Ph1.
ARMY, NG FLORIDA CAMP BLANDING Combined Arms Collective 9,000 9,000
Training Fac.
ARMY, NG FLORIDA MIRAMAR Readiness Center........... 20,000 20,000
ARMY, NG HAWAII KAPOLEI Army Aviation Support 28,000 28,000
Facility Ph1.
ARMY, NG IDAHO ORCHARD TRAINING AREA ORTC(Barracks)Ph2.......... 40,000 40,000
ARMY, NG INDIANA SOUTH BEND Armed Forces Reserve Center 21,000 21,000
Add/Alt.
ARMY, NG INDIANA TERRE HAUTE Field Maintenance Shop..... 9,000 9,000
ARMY, NG IOWA CAMP DODGE Urban Assault Course....... 3,000 3,000
ARMY, NG KANSAS TOPEKA Taxiway, Ramp & Hangar 9,500 9,500
Alterations.
ARMY, NG KENTUCKY FRANKFORT Army Aviation Support 32,000 32,000
Facility.
ARMY, NG MASSACHUSETTS CAMP EDWARDS Unit Training Equipment 22,000 22,000
Site.
ARMY, NG MINNESOTA CAMP RIPLEY Scout Reconnaissance Range. 17,000 17,000
ARMY, NG MINNESOTA ST PAUL Readiness Center........... 17,000 17,000
ARMY, NG MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD Regional Training Institute 18,000 18,000
ARMY, NG MISSOURI KANSAS CITY Readiness Center Add/Alt... 1,900 1,900
ARMY, NG MISSOURI MONETT Readiness Center Add/Alt... 820 820
ARMY, NG MISSOURI PERRYVILLE Readiness Center Add/Alt... 700 700
ARMY, NG MONTANA MILES CITY Readiness Center........... 11,000 11,000
ARMY, NG NEW JERSEY SEA GIRT Regional Training Institute 34,000 34,000
ARMY, NG NEW YORK STORMVILLE Combined Support Maint Shop 24,000 24,000
Ph1.
ARMY, NG OHIO CHILLICOTHE Field Maintenance Shop Add/ 3,100 3,100
Alt.
ARMY, NG OHIO DELAWARE Readiness Center........... 12,000 12,000
ARMY, NG OKLAHOMA CAMP GRUBER Operations Readiness 25,000 25,000
Training Complex.
ARMY, NG UTAH CAMP WILLIAMS BEQ Facility (Regional 15,000 15,000
Training Institute).
ARMY, NG UTAH CAMP WILLIAMS Regional Training Institute 21,000 21,000
Ph2.
ARMY, NG WASHINGTON FORT LEWIS Readiness Center........... 35,000 35,000
ARMY, NG WEST VIRGINIA LOGAN Readiness Center........... 14,200 14,200
ARMY, NG WISCONSIN WAUSAU Field Maintenance Shop..... 10,000 10,000
ARMY, NG GUAM BARRIGADA JFHQ Ph4................... 8,500 8,500
ARMY, NG PUERTO RICO CAMP SANTIAGO Readiness Center........... 3,800 3,800
ARMY, NG PUERTO RICO CEIBA Refill Station Building.... 2,200 2,200
ARMY, NG PUERTO RICO GUAYNABO Readiness Center (JFHQ).... 15,000 15,000
ARMY, NG PUERTO RICO GURABO Readiness Center........... 14,700 14,700
ARMY, NG WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 15,057 15,057
LOCATIONS Construction.
ARMY, NG WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 26,622 26,622
LOCATIONS
MCon,Army NG--Subtotal 613,799 613,799
....................... .......................
MCon,Air NG ....................... .......................
AF, NG CALIFORNIA FRESNO YOSEMITE IAP ANG F-15 Conversion............ 11,000 11,000
AF, NG HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- TFI--F-22 Combat Apron 6,500 6,500
Hickam Addition.
AF, NG NEW MEXICO KIRTLAND AFB Alter Target Intelligence 8,500 8,500
Facility.
AF, NG WYOMING CHEYENNE MAP C-130 Flight Simulator 6,486 6,486
Training Facility.
AF, NG WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 5,900 5,900
LOCATIONS Construction.
AF, NG WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 4,000 4,000
LOCATIONS
MCon,Air NG--Subtotal 42,386 42,386
NG MILCON--TOTAL 656,185 656,185
....................... .......................
MCon,A Res ....................... .......................
ARMY, RESERVE CALIFORNIA FORT HUNTER LIGGETT ORTC....................... 64,000 64,000
ARMY, RESERVE CALIFORNIA FORT HUNTER LIGGETT UPH Barracks............... 4,300 4,300
ARMY, RESERVE CALIFORNIA TUSTIN Army Reserve Center........ 27,000 27,000
ARMY, RESERVE ILLINOIS FORT SHERIDAN Army Reserve Center........ 28,000 28,000
ARMY, RESERVE MARYLAND ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Army Reserve Center........ 21,000 21,000
ARMY, RESERVE MARYLAND BALTIMORE Add/Alt Army Reserve Center 10,000 10,000
ARMY, RESERVE MASSACHUSETTS DEVENS RESERVE FORCES Automatic Record Fire Range 4,800 4,800
TRAINING AREA
ARMY, RESERVE MASSACHUSETTS DEVENS RESERVE FORCES Combat Pistol/MP Firearms 3,700 3,700
TRAINING AREA Qualification.
ARMY, RESERVE NEVADA LAS VEGAS Army Reserve Center/AMSA... 21,000 21,000
ARMY, RESERVE NEW JERSEY Joint Base McGuire-Dix- Automated Infantry Squad 7,400 7,400
Lakehurst Battle Course.
ARMY, RESERVE WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis- Army Reserve Center........ 40,000 40,000
McChord
ARMY, RESERVE WISCONSIN FORT MCCOY Central Issue Facility..... 12,200 12,200
ARMY, RESERVE WISCONSIN FORT MCCOY Dining Facility............ 8,600 8,600
ARMY, RESERVE WISCONSIN FORT MCCOY ECS Tactical Equip. Maint. 27,000 27,000
Facility (TEMF).
ARMY, RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 10,895 10,895
LOCATIONS Construction.
ARMY, RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 15,951 15,951
LOCATIONS
MCon,A Res--Subtotal 305,846 305,846
Milcon, Naval Res ....................... .......................
NAVY, RESERVE ARIZONA YUMA Reserve Training Facility-- 5,379 5,379
Yuma AZ.
NAVY, RESERVE IOWA FORT DES MOINES Joint Reserve Center--Des 19,162 19,162
Moines IA.
NAVY, RESERVE LOUISIANA NEW ORLEANS Transient Quarters......... 7,187 7,187
NAVY, RESERVE NEW YORK BROOKLYN Vehicle Maint. Fac.-- 4,430 4,430
Brooklyn NY.
NAVY, RESERVE TEXAS FORT WORTH Commercial Vehicle 11,256 11,256
Inspection Site.
NAVY, RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 2,118 2,118
LOCATIONS
Milcon, Naval Res--Subtotal 49,532 49,532
MCon,AF Res ....................... .......................
AF, RESERVE NEW YORK NIAGARA FALLS IAP Flight Simulator Facility.. 6,100 6,100
AF, RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Unspecified Minor 2,000 2,000
LOCATIONS Construction.
AF, RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPEC VARIOUS WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 2,879 2,879
LOCATIONS
MCon,AF Res--Subtotal 10,979 10,979
Reserve Milcon--TOTAL 366,357 366,357
....................... .......................
MILCON Major Accounts--TOTAL 8,690,673 -663,914 8,026,759
....................... .......................
....................... .......................
Chem-Demil ....................... .......................
Chem Demil COLORADO PUEBLO DEPOT Ammunition Demilitarization 36,000 36,000
Facility, Ph XIV.
Chem Demil KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS ARMY DEPOT Ammunition Demilitarization 115,000 115,000
Ph XIII.
ChemDemil / NSIP--Total 151,000 151,000
....................... .......................
NSIP ....................... .......................
NSIP WORLDWIDE UNSPEC NATO SECURITY NATO Security Investment 254,163 254,163
INVESTMENT PROGRAM Program.
NATO Security Investment Program 254,163 254,163
....................... .......................
Army Fam Housing ....................... .......................
FH Const,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Family Housing P&D......... 4,641 4,641
LOCATIONS
Army Fam Hsg Construction--Subtotal 4,641 4,641
FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Utilities Account.......... 88,112 88,112
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Services Account........... 13,487 13,487
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Management Account......... 56,970 56,970
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Miscellaneous Account...... 620 620
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 31,785 31,785
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Leasing.................... 203,533 203,533
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real 109,534 109,534
LOCATIONS Property.
FH Op&Dt,A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Privatization Support Costs 26,010 26,010
LOCATIONS
Army Fam Hsg O&M--Subtotal 530,051 530,051
Army Fam Hsg--TOTAL 534,692 534,692
Navy Fam Housing ....................... .......................
FH Const,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Improvements............... 97,655 97,655
LOCATIONS
FH Const,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Design..................... 4,527 4,527
LOCATIONS
Navy Fam Hsg Construction--Subtotal 102,182 102,182
FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Utilities Account.......... 80,860 80,860
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 17,697 17,697
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Management Account......... 62,741 62,741
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Miscellaneous Account...... 491 491
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Services Account........... 19,615 19,615
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Leasing.................... 83,774 83,774
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real 85,254 85,254
LOCATIONS Property.
FH Op&Dt,N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Privatization Support Costs 27,798 27,798
LOCATIONS
Navy Fam Hsg O&M--Subtotal 378,230 378,230
Navy Fam Hsg--TOTAL 480,412 480,412
AF Fam Housing ....................... .......................
FH Con,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Improvements............... 79,571 79,571
LOCATIONS
FH Con,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Planning and Design........ 4,253 4,253
LOCATIONS
AF Fam Hsg Construction--Subtotal 83,824 83,824
FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Utilities Account.......... 75,662 75,662
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Management Account......... 55,002 55,002
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Services Account........... 16,550 16,550
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 37,878 37,878
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Miscellaneous Account...... 1,943 1,943
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Leasing.................... 62,730 62,730
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Maintenance (RPMA RPMC).... 201,937 201,937
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Housing Privatization...... 46,127 46,127
LOCATIONS
AF Fam Hsg O&M--Subtotal 497,829 497,829
AF Fam Hsg--TOTAL 581,653 581,653
Def-Wide Fam Housing ....................... .......................
FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Utilities Account.......... 283 283
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Utilities Account.......... 12 12
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 4,660 4,660
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 20 20
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Services Account........... 31 31
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Management Account......... 371 371
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Furnishings Account........ 66 66
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Leasing.................... 35,333 35,333
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Leasing.................... 10,822 10,822
LOCATIONS
FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real 567 567
LOCATIONS Property.
FH Op&Dt,D-W WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Maintenance of Real 73 73
LOCATIONS Property.
DefWide Fam Hsg O&M--Subtotal 52,238 52,238
DoD FH Imprv Fd ....................... .......................
DoD FH Imprv Fd WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE Family Housing Improvement 1,786 1,786
LOCATIONS Fund.
DoD Fam Hsg Imprv Fd--Subtotal 1,786 1,786
FAM HSG--TOTAL 1,650,781 1,650,781
....................... .......................
BRAC IV ....................... .......................
BRAC, A WORLDWIDE UNSPEC BASE REALIGNMENT & Base Realignment & Closure. 79,893 79,893
CLOSURE, ARMY
BRAC, N WORLDWIDE UNSPEC BASE REALIGNMENT & Base Realignment & Closure. 146,951 146,951
CLOSURE, NAVY
BRAC, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPEC BASE REALIGNMENT & Base Realignment & Closure. 122,552 122,552
CLOSURE, AF
BRAC IV--TOTAL 349,396 349,396
....................... .......................
2005 BRAC ....................... .......................
ARMY BRAC ....................... .......................
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-121: FORT GILLEM, GA... 4,976 4,976
LOCATIONS
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-222: FORT MCPHERSON, GA 6,772 6,772
LOCATIONS
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT VARIOUS 20,453 20,453
LOCATIONS LOCATIONS.
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-223: FORT MONMOUTH, NJ. 9,989 9,989
LOCATIONS
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-36: RED RIVER ARMY 1,385 1,385
LOCATIONS DEPOT.
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-113: FORT MONROE, VA... 12,184 12,184
LOCATIONS
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-236: RC TRANSFORMATION 557 557
LOCATIONS IN CT.
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-242: RC TRANSFORMATION 172 172
LOCATIONS IN NY.
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-253: RC TRANSFORMATION 100 100
LOCATIONS IN PA.
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-212: USAR CMD & CNTRL-- 222 222
LOCATIONS NEW ENGLAND.
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-167: USAR COMMAND AND 175 175
LOCATIONS CONTROL--NE.
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE IND-112: RIVER BANK ARMY 22,431 22,431
LOCATIONS AMMO PLANT, CA.
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE IND-119: NEWPORT CHEMICAL 197 197
LOCATIONS DEPOT, IN.
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE IND-106: KANSAS ARMY 7,280 7,280
LOCATIONS AMMUNITION PLANT, KS.
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE IND-110: MISSISSIPPI ARMY 160 160
LOCATIONS AMMO PLANT, MS.
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE IND-122: LONE STAR ARMY 11,379 11,379
LOCATIONS AMMO PLANT, TX.
BRAC--Army WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MED-2: WALTER REED NMMC, 7,787 7,787
LOCATIONS BETHESDA, MD.
BRAC--Army--Subtotal 106,219 106,219
NAVY BRAC ....................... .......................
BRAC--Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DON-172: NWS SEAL BEACH, 2,129 2,129
LOCATIONS CONCORD, CA.
BRAC--Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DON-138: NAS BRUNSWICK, ME. 4,897 4,897
LOCATIONS
BRAC--Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DON-157: MCSA KANSAS CITY, 39 39
LOCATIONS MO.
BRAC--Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DON-84: JRB WILLOW GROVE & 189 189
LOCATIONS CAMBRIA REG AP.
BRAC--Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DON-168: NS NEWPORT, RI.... 1,742 1,742
LOCATIONS
BRAC--Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DON-100: PLANNING, DESIGN 5,038 5,038
LOCATIONS AND MANAGEMENT.
BRAC--Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DON-101: VARIOUS LOCATIONS. 4,176 4,176
LOCATIONS
BRAC--Navy--Subtotal 18,210 18,210
AF BRAC ....................... .......................
BRAC--Air Force WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT VARIOUS 605 605
LOCATIONS LOCATIONS.
BRAC--Air Force WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MED-57: BROOKS CITY BASE, 326 326
LOCATIONS TX.
BRAC--Air Force WORLDWIDE UNSPEC UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE COMM ADD 3: GALENA FOL, AK. 1,337 1,337
LOCATIONS
BRAC--Air Force--Subtotal 2,268 2,268
BRAC 2005--TOTAL 126,697 126,697
BRAC IV + BRAC 2005--TOTAL 476,093 476,093
....................... .......................
MILCON GRAND TOTAL 11,222,710 -663,914 10,558,796
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2013 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Summary By Appropriation
Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies
Appropriation Summary:
Energy Programs
Electricity delivery and energy reliability......... 6,000 -6,000 0
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National nuclear security administration:
Weapons activities................................ 7,577,341 25,000 7,602,341
Defense nuclear nonproliferation.................. 2,458,631 0 2,458,631
Naval reactors.................................... 1,088,635 37,986 1,126,621
Office of the administrator....................... 411,279 -25,000 386,279
Total, National nuclear security administration..... 11,535,886 37,986 11,573,872
Environmental and other defense activities:
Defense environmental cleanup..................... 5,472,001 -463,000 5,009,001
Other defense activities.......................... 735,702 0 735,702
Total, Environmental & other defense activities..... 6,207,703 -463,000 5,744,703
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............... 17,743,589 -425,014 17,318,575
Total, Discretionary Funding.............................. 17,749,589 -431,014 17,318,575
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability
Infrastructure security & energy restoration.......... 6,000 -6,000 0
Weapons Activities
Directed stockpile work
Life extension programs
B61 Life extension program.......................... 369,000 369,000
W76 Life extension program.......................... 174,931 174,931
Total, Life extension programs........................ 543,931 0 543,931
Stockpile systems
B61 Stockpile systems............................... 72,364 72,364
W76 Stockpile systems............................... 65,445 25,000 90,445
W78 Stockpile systems............................... 139,207 139,207
W80 Stockpile systems............................... 46,540 46,540
B83 Stockpile systems............................... 57,947 57,947
W87 Stockpile systems............................... 85,689 85,689
W88 Stockpile systems............................... 123,217 123,217
Total, Stockpile systems.............................. 590,409 25,000 615,409
Weapons dismantlement and disposition
Operations and maintenance.......................... 51,265 51,265
Stockpile services
Production support.................................. 365,405 365,405
Research and development support.................... 28,103 28,103
R&D certification and safety........................ 191,632 191,632
Management, technology, and production.............. 175,844 175,844
Plutonium sustainment............................... 141,685 141,685
Total, Stockpile services............................. 902,669 0 902,669
Total, Directed stockpile work.......................... 2,088,274 25,000 2,113,274
Campaigns:
Science campaign
Advanced certification.............................. 44,104 44,104
Primary assessment technologies..................... 94,000 94,000
Dynamic materials properties........................ 97,000 97,000
Advanced radiography................................ 30,000 30,000
Secondary assessment technologies................... 85,000 85,000
Total, Science campaign............................... 350,104 0 350,104
Engineering campaign
Enhanced surety..................................... 46,421 46,421
Weapon systems engineering assessment technology.... 18,983 18,983
Nuclear survivability............................... 21,788 21,788
Enhanced surveillance............................... 63,379 63,379
Total, Engineering campaign........................... 150,571 0 150,571
Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
campaign
Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support.... 81,942 81,942
Ignition............................................ 84,172 84,172
Support of other stockpile programs................. 14,817 14,817
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............ 6,044 6,044
Joint program in high energy density laboratory 8,334 8,334
plasmas............................................
Facility operations and target production........... 264,691 264,691
Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield 460,000 0 460,000
campaign.............................................
Advanced simulation and computing campaign............ 600,000 600,000
Readiness Campaign
Nonnuclear readiness................................ 64,681 64,681
Tritium readiness................................... 65,414 65,414
Total, Readiness campaign............................. 130,095 0 130,095
Total, Campaigns........................................ 1,690,770 0 1,690,770
Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF)
Operations of facilities
Kansas City Plant................................. 163,602 163,602
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory............ 89,048 89,048
Los Alamos National Laboratory.................... 335,978 335,978
Nevada National Security Site..................... 115,697 115,697
Pantex............................................ 172,020 172,020
Sandia National Laboratory........................ 167,384 167,384
Savannah River Site............................... 120,577 120,577
Y-12 National security complex.................... 255,097 255,097
Total, Operations of facilities....................... 1,419,403 0 1,419,403
Science, technology and engineering capability support 166,945 166,945
Nuclear operations capability support................. 203,346 203,346
Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities.... 1,789,694 0 1,789,694
Construction:
13-D-301 Electrical infrastructure upgrades, LANL/ 23,000 23,000
LLNL...............................................
12-D-301 TRU waste facilities, LANL................. 24,204 24,204
11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment project, LANL........... 8,889 8,889
10-D-501 Nuclear facilities risk reduction Y-12 17,909 17,909
National security complex, Oakridge, TN............
09-D-404 Test capabilities revitalization II, Sandia 11,332 11,332
National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.............
08-D-802 High explosive pressing facility Pantex 24,800 24,800
Plant, Amarillo, TX................................
06-D-141 PED/Construction, UPFY-12, Oak Ridge, TN... 340,000 -340,000 0
06-D-141 PED/Construction, UPFY-12, Phase I, Oak 0 340,000 340,000
Ridge, TN..........................................
Total, Construction................................... 450,134 0 450,134
Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities....... 2,239,828 0 2,239,828
Secure transportation asset
Operations and equipment.............................. 114,965 114,965
Program direction..................................... 104,396 104,396
Total, Secure transportation asset...................... 219,361 0 219,361
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response.............. 247,552 247,552
Site stewardship
Operations and maintenance............................ 90,001 90,001
Total, Site stewardship................................. 90,001 0 90,001
Defense nuclear security
Operations and maintenance............................ 643,285 643,285
NNSA CIO activities..................................... 155,022 155,022
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 185,000 185,000
National security applications.......................... 18,248 18,248
Subtotal, Weapons activities.............................. 7,577,341 25,000 7,602,341
Total, Weapons Activities................................. 7,577,341 25,000 7,602,341
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and verification R&D
Operations and maintenance............................ 398,186 398,186
Domestic Enrichment R&D.............................. 150,000 150,000
Subtotal, Nonproliferation and verification R&D........ 548,186 548,186
Nonproliferation and international security............. 150,119 150,119
International nuclear materials protection and 311,000 311,000
cooperation............................................
Fissile materials disposition
U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition
Operations and maintenance
U.S. plutonium disposition........................ 498,979 498,979
U.S. uranium disposition.......................... 29,736 29,736
Total, Operations and maintenance................... 528,715 0 528,715
Construction:
99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, 388,802 388,802
Savannah River, SC...............................
Total, Construction................................. 388,802 0 388,802
Total, U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition..... 917,517 0 917,517
Russian surplus fissile materials disposition......... 3,788 3,788
Total, Fissile materials disposition.................... 921,305 0 921,305
Global threat reduction initiative...................... 466,021 466,021
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 62,000 62,000
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................ 2,458,631 0 2,458,631
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 2,458,631 0 2,458,631
Naval Reactors
Naval reactors development.............................. 418,072 418,072
Ohio replacement reactor systems development............ 89,700 37,986 127,686
S8G Prototype refueling................................. 121,100 121,100
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure............ 366,961 366,961
Construction:
13-D-905 Remote-handled low-level waste facility, INL. 8,890 8,890
13-D-904 KS Radiological work and storage building, 2,000 2,000
KSO..................................................
13-D-903, KS Prototype Staff Building, KSO............ 14,000 14,000
10-D-903, Security upgrades, KAPL..................... 19,000 19,000
08-D-190 Expended Core Facility M-290 recovering 5,700 5,700
discharge station,Naval Reactor Facility, ID.........
Total, Construction..................................... 49,590 0 49,590
Program direction....................................... 43,212 43,212
Subtotal, Naval Reactors.................................. 1,088,635 37,986 1,126,621
Total, Naval Reactors..................................... 1,088,635 37,986 1,126,621
Office Of The Administrator
Office of the administrator............................. 411,279 -25,000 386,279
Total, Office Of The Administrator........................ 411,279 -25,000 386,279
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Closure sites:
Closure sites administration.......................... 1,990 1,990
Hanford site:
River corridor and other cleanup operations........... 389,347 389,347
Central plateau remediation........................... 558,820 558,820
Richland community and regulatory support............. 15,156 15,156
Total, Hanford site..................................... 963,323 0 963,323
Idaho National Laboratory:
Idaho cleanup and waste disposition................... 396,607 396,607
Idaho community and regulatory support................ 3,000 3,000
Total, Idaho National Laboratory........................ 399,607 0 399,607
NNSA sites
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory................ 1,484 1,484
Nuclear facility D&D Separations Process Research Unit 24,000 24,000
Nevada................................................ 64,641 64,641
Sandia National Laboratories.......................... 5,000 5,000
Los Alamos National Laboratory........................ 239,143 239,143
Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.................. 334,268 0 334,268
Oak Ridge Reservation:
Building 3019......................................... 67,525 67,525
OR cleanup and disposition............................ 109,470 109,470
OR reservation community and regulatory support....... 4,500 4,500
Total, Oak Ridge Reservation............................ 181,495 0 181,495
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. 482,113 482,113
Total, Office of River protection....................... 1,172,113 0 1,172,113
Savannah River sites:
Savannah River risk management operations............. 444,089 444,089
SR community and regulatory support................... 16,584 16,584
Radioactive liquid tank waste:
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 698,294 698,294
disposition........................................
Construction:
05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah 22,549 22,549
River............................................
Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste.................. 720,843 0 720,843
Total, Savannah River site.............................. 1,181,516 0 1,181,516
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Waste isolation pilot plant........................... 198,010 198,010
Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant...................... 198,010 0 198,010
Program direction....................................... 323,504 323,504
Program support......................................... 18,279 18,279
Safeguards and Security:
Oak Ridge Reservation................................. 18,817 18,817
Paducah............................................... 8,909 8,909
Portsmouth............................................ 8,578 8,578
Richland/Hanford Site................................. 71,746 71,746
Savannah River Site................................... 121,977 121,977
Waste Isolation Pilot Project......................... 4,977 4,977
West Valley........................................... 2,015 2,015
Total, Safeguards and Security.......................... 237,019 0 237,019
Technology development.................................. 20,000 20,000
Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution................ 463,000 -463,000 0
Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup................... 5,494,124 -463,000 5,031,124
Adjustments
Use of prior year balances........................... -12,123 -12,123
Use of unobligated balances.......................... -10,000 -10,000
Total, Adjustments...................................... -22,123 0 -22,123
Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup...................... 5,472,001 -463,000 5,009,001
Other Defense Activities
Health, safety and security
Health, safety and security........................... 139,325 139,325
Program direction..................................... 106,175 106,175
Total, Health, safety and security...................... 245,500 0 245,500
Specialized security activities......................... 188,619 188,619
Office of Legacy Management
Legacy management..................................... 164,477 164,477
Program direction..................................... 13,469 13,469
Total, Office of Legacy Management...................... 177,946 0 177,946
Defense-related activities
Defense related administrative support.................. 118,836 118,836
Office of hearings and appeals.......................... 4,801 4,801
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................ 735,702 0 735,702
Total, Other Defense Activities........................... 735,702 0 735,702
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Departmental Recommendations
Seven separate legislative proposals on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 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-5400......................... March 14, 2012.... March 20, 2012
EC-5605......................... April 6, 2012..... April 18, 2012
EC-5606......................... March 28, 2012.... April 18, 2012
EC-5753......................... April 9, 2012..... April 19, 2012
EC-5813......................... April 18, 2012.... April 26, 2012
EC-6018......................... April 25, 2012.... April 30, 2012
EC-6016......................... May 4, 2012....... May 8, 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Action
The committee vote to report the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 passed by roll call
vote, 26-0, as follows: In favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman,
Reed, Akaka, Nelson, Webb, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich,
Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, McCain, Inhofe,
Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, Collins,
Graham, Cornyn, and Vitter. Opposed: None.
The 6 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 conduct Full Committee markups in closed
session because classified information will be discussed.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 18-8.
In Favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson,
Webb, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Blumenthal, McCain,
Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Portman, and Graham.
Opposed: Senators McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Brown,
Ayotte, Collins, Cornyn, and Vitter.
2. MOTION: To authorize the use of Department of Defense
funds for abortion in cases of rape and incest.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 16-10.
In Favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Webb,
McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, McCain, Brown, and Collins.
Opposed: Senators Nelson, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss,
Wicker, Portman, Ayotte, Graham, Cornyn, and Vitter.
3. MOTION: To make certain alternative fuel procurement
requirements, as required by Section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, inapplicable to the
Department of Defense.
VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 13-13.
In Favor: Senators Webb, Manchin, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions,
Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, Graham, Cornyn, and
Vitter.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson,
McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, and Collins.
4. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the
use of funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of
Defense in FY 2013 from being obligated or expended for the
production or sole purchase of an alternative fuel if the cost
exceeds the cost of traditional fossil fuels used for the same
purpose, except for continued testing purposes.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 13-12.
In Favor: Senators Webb, Manchin, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions,
Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, Graham, Cornyn, and
Vitter.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson,
McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Shaheen, Gillibrand, and
Blumenthal.
5. MOTION: To prohibit the construction of a biofuels
refinery or any other facility or infrastructure used to refine
biofuels unless the requirement is specifically authorized by
law.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 13-12.
In Favor: Senators Webb, McCaskill, McCain, Inhofe,
Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, Graham,
Cornyn, and Vitter.
Opposed: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson,
Manchin, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Shaheen, Gillibrand, and
Blumenthal.
6. MOTION: To include sense of the Senate language
providing notice to Congress on unfunded priorities.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 14-10.
In Favor: Senators Levin, Akaka, Nelson, Webb, McCaskill,
Udall, Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal,
Chambliss, Wicker, and Portman.
Opposed: Senators Lieberman, Reed, Begich, McCain, Inhofe,
Sessions, Brown, Ayotte, Collins, and Cornyn.
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 2013.
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. BEGICH
I am pleased the committee included a legislative provision
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
entitled ``Criteria for decisions involving certain base
closure and realignment activities.'' This legislative
provision includes a one-year moratorium on any action that
would result in a military installation covered under paragraph
(1) of section 2687(a) of title 10, United States Code, to no
longer be covered by that section.
As stated in the February 2012 document sent to Congress
titled, ``Force Structure Changes: Sustaining Readiness and
Modernizing the Total Force,'' the Air Force is proposing to
``relocate our F-16 Aggressor Squadron in Alaska from Eielson
AFB to Elmendorf AFB, allowing us to achieve savings in base
support at Eielson beginning in FY15.'' Subsequent
documentation provided to Congress, including an April 2012
Alaska Congressional Delegation brief and May 14, 2012 letter
from the Secretary of the Air Force, confirms the proposed
action entails a reduction of approximately 345 of the 406
civilian personnel at Eielson AFB. The proposed action would
clearly result in Eielson AFB being no longer covered under
paragraph (1) of section 2687(a) of title 10, United States
Code, and therefore subject to the one-year moratorium included
in the bill.
The one-year moratorium will allow Congress to fully
understand the national security implications of this proposed
action. The proposed action would result in the ``warming'' of
one our nation's most strategically advantageous air bases, the
wisdom of which must further be questioned by Congress. The Air
Force acknowledges the high military value of Eielson's
location. The base will become more strategic as we renew our
focus on the Asia-Pacific and the Arctic becomes increasingly
important. Eielson AFB is critical to the joint forces ability
to project power into the Pacific Theater and rapidly deploy
forces in support of contingencies and other events in the
region. The drastic reduction at an installation in the Pacific
Air Force's area of operations is contrary to the new Defense
Strategic Guidance.
Additionally, the one-year moratorium will provide the
Congress an opportunity to further examine the affordability
and feasibility of implementation of the proposed action. This
is especially important since no comprehensive analysis through
the future years' defense program has been conducted on this
action. In fact, recent information suggests the proposed
action at Eielson AFB will actually cost money in Fiscal Year
2013. The cost was unanticipated and will require the
reprogramming of already constrained resources. This leads to
questions of affordability since the Department of Defense must
reduce spending in the near-term per the Budget Control Act. In
these fiscally constrained times we can no longer afford to
make costly decisions we hope, but have not validated, will
produce a return on investment.
I am also pleased the legislative provision requires the
Comptroller General to report Congress on the objective
criteria used by the Department of Defense to make decisions
relating to realignments of units employed at military
installations that are not covered by the requirements of
section 2687 of title 10, United States Code. The Air Force has
determined the proposed action at Eielson AFB is not subject to
the requirements of that law because civilian personnel layoffs
are reductions-in-force and civilian personnel are only being
reduced, not reduced and relocated. However, it is imperative
proposed action at military bases falling below the
requirements of section 2687 of title 10 are also unbiased,
objective decisions in the best interest of national security
and the taxpayer dollar. Those actions are also subject to
Congressional oversight.
The proposed action at Eielson AFB is an action that was
rejected by the BRAC Commission in 2005 because of Eielson
AFB's high military value and because the Air Force
overestimated cost savings. To date, the Air Force has not
validated their proposed action or produced the objective
criteria by which the decision was made. While Congress is
mindful of budget constraints, force restructuring and
reductions must not be used as a guise to conduct a BRAC
without a formal BRAC Commission or process, which this
committee did not authorize.
Mark Begich.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. McCAIN
I voted in favor of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense
Authorization bill approved by the Senate Armed Services
Committee. This bill represents a truly bipartisan effort to
support our warfighters and maintain the readiness of the Armed
Forces of the United States in difficult budget circumstances.
While it is not perfect, I still unreservedly support it and
will work for improvements when the bill is considered on the
Senate floor and in conference with the House of
Representatives.
The Committee met under the threat of `sequestration'
mandated by last year's Budget Control Act. Pentagon leadership
has repeatedly warned that these additional cuts, totaling
almost half a trillion dollars over the next decade, would
devastate the Department's ability to provide for the nation's
defense. Sequestration would undermine the readiness of the
armed services, dramatically reduce our ability to project
power and defend our interests, jeopardize the livelihood of
civilian and uniformed personnel alike, and increase risk to
national security - not to mention the shattering impact on our
fragile economy with the potential for hundreds of thousands of
layoffs. Furthermore, the way in which these automatic cuts
would be applied to the Department of Defense would likely
require that thousands of contracts be terminated and
renegotiated, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. I am pleased that
this bill includes my amendment that would require the
Secretary of Defense to provide a detailed report on the
specific impacts of sequestration. But this provision is only a
first step. We cannot wait until a `lame duck' session to deal
with this looming disaster. We must begin to negotiate a
solution to the problem now.
Recognizing the difficult budget realities facing our
nation, the Committee passed a bill that is consistent with the
level of funding requested by the President. In addition, the
bill requires the Department to reduce funding for civilian
personnel and service contractors by five percent each over
five years, saving over $5 billion--an important first step in
eliminating the massive growth in overhead costs over the past
several years and reducing the civilian workforce concurrently
with the military personnel reductions proposed by the
Secretary of Defense.
While the Committee accepted most of the proposed
reductions in military personnel end strengths, I have serious
concerns with the Committee's decision to freeze for one year
proposed Air Force aircraft retirements and transfers and
reverse personnel reductions proposed by the Air Force, pending
the recommendations of a new commission. This is a decision
that will cost the Air Force at least $1.4 billion in Fiscal
Year 2013 alone. Secretary of Defense Panetta recently said
that My concern is that if Congress now tries to reverse many
of the tough decisions that we reached by adding several
billion dollars to the president's budget request, then they
risk not only potential gridlock--[but] they could force the
kind of trade-offs that could jeopardize our national defense.'
This action subjects the military judgment of our senior
leaders on difficult matters affecting national security to a
commission's review, simply because some states may lose jobs.
I am also concerned about the cost of the new Defense
Clandestine Service. I support the Department's efforts to
provide human intelligence collection support to the
warfighter, but the Department must do this within existing
resources and not grow the size of the federal payroll.
Chairman Levin and I worked together to add a provision in the
bill that would prohibit the use of military intelligence
program funding for additional personnel for the Defense
Clandestine Service. We also asked the Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation office in the Department of Defense to
provide the Congress with an independent cost estimate for the
Defense Clandestine Service.
The bill continues the Committee's aggressive pursuit of
acquisition process improvements and management reforms by
including provisions that prohibit the use of cost-type
contracts for the production of major weapon systems; require
the Department to revise its `profit policy' to ensure a link
between profit and actual performance; require the Department
to notify Congress of potential termination liability on
contracts for major weapon systems; and require the Department
to implement recommendations by the General Accountability
Office to eliminate duplicative programs and functions.
Several provisions in the bill continue the Committee's
strong oversight of troubled programs. The bill would fence 50
percent of the funding for the second Ford-class aircraft
carrier until the Navy recertifies the current $8.1 billion
cost cap on CVN-79 and requires that the Navy report on how it
will control its construction costs. Other provisions
accelerate developmental testing of Littoral Combat Ships and
enhance oversight of its Mission Modules; subject how the Air
Force maintains and modernizes F-22A aircraft to greater
oversight and monitors the aircraft's oxygen supply problem;
and continues strong oversight of the F-35 program, including
concurrency, software development, production, and testing.
I am also pleased that the Committee adopted an amendment
to prohibit funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense System
(MEADS). This provision will ensure that not another dollar is
wasted on this persistently underperforming program that the
Army never intended to procure and has no direct benefit to the
warfighter.
In addition, the Committee imposed restrictions on DOD
expenditures to develop a commercial biofuels industry. There
are many areas of research that are wholly appropriate to the
Department of Defense mission, such as efforts to extend the
life and reduce the weight of batteries, adapt solar
technologies to battlefield conditions, and reduce fuel
consumption through more efficient engines and weapon systems.
But defense funds should not be used to invigorate a commercial
industry that cannot provide an affordable product without
heavy government subsidies. This is not a core defense need and
should be left to the Department of Energy, which received over
$4 billion last year for energy research and development and
related programs, or to the private sector to take the lead. In
a tough budget climate for the Defense Department, we need
every dollar to protect our troops on the battlefield with
energy technologies that reduce fuel demand and save lives.
Spending $26 per gallon of biofuel is not consistent with that
goal. The Committee's action corrects this misplacement of
priorities.
Unfortunately, this bill once again authorizes hundreds of
millions of dollars in unnecessary and unrequested projects.
Some have argued that the Department of Defense does not have a
`monopoly on good ideas.' While this is certainly a valid
statement, the Committee has an obligation to ensure that added
funds, such as $30 million for supplemental impact aid to local
educational agencies, result in tangible value to military
families. And I do not believe the Committee should use terms
like `Committee initiative' to disguise additions to the budget
that are earmarks by any other name.
Two perennial additions that highlight the problem of
unrequested authorizations are the Industrial Base Innovation
Fund (IBIF) and the Defense Rapid Innovation Program (DRIP),
which together are earmarked for $230 million in unrequested
funds. I am pleased to note, however, that the Committee
finally saw fit to quit authorizing the Metals Affordability
Initiative--another perennial earmark (now termed a `Committee
initiative' since earmarks are officially banned). I have
consistently said that, if the Department of Defense believes
programs like IBIF and DRIP are worthwhile, they need to start
expressing that sentiment by including them in the budget
request. When our men and women in uniform are being asked to
sacrifice so much, this Committee should reassess our
priorities and stop pushing our special interests.
There is another new form of earmark--what our critics have
come to call `phone-marks.' I intend to offer an amendment
during Senate floor consideration of the bill that will `make
them famous' by requiring the Administration to publish a
record of any calls, emails, or other correspondence from
Members or their staff who seek to direct funding from any
program that should be awarded on the basis of competition or
merit-based processes to non-competitive, non-merit-based
activities.
Modernization is essential to the future viability of the
nuclear weapons complex and was a key condition for the
Senate's ratification of the New START Treaty. However, it has
been just over a year since the treaty entered into force, and
the President has already failed to honor his 10-year
commitment to nuclear modernization. I am pleased the Committee
adopted language reaffirming Congress' rejection of the
President's decision to undermine nuclear modernization and
restating our commitment to ensuring the safety, security, and
reliability of the nuclear weapons enterprise. The bill also
provides the Department of Defense authority to transfer a
limited amount of funding to the Department of Energy to
fulfill this important commitment.
I believe that cyber warfare will be the key battlefield of
the 21st century, and I am concerned about our ability to fight
and win in this new domain. I authored a provision in the bill
that requires the commander of U.S. Cyber Command to provide a
strategy for the development and deployment of offensive cyber
capabilities. I am very concerned that our strategy is too
reliant on defensive measures in cyber space, and believe we
need to develop the capability to go on the offense as well.
This provision to craft a comprehensive strategy should spur
U.S. Cyber Command to develop this offensive capability
effectively and at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.
Again this year, the Committee restricted further
construction on Guam related to the realignment of U.S. Marines
in the Pacific theater until Congress has a clear understanding
of the costs and strategic implications of the proposed force
realignments on our strong allies in the region. The bill also
contains no funding for Office of Economic Adjustment
activities on Guam and requires future requests for the
construction of public facilities and infrastructure to be
specifically authorized by law.
Another provision in this bill puts restrictions on
reimbursements to Pakistan from Coalition Support Funds. Before
making any such reimbursements, the Secretary of Defense must
certify to Congress that Pakistan is maintaining open supply
lines through Pakistan into Afghanistan for coalition forces,
is not supporting or providing safe haven to militant extremist
groups such as the Haqqani Network and the Afghan Taliban
Quetta Shura, is committed to a strategy to counter the
production and use of improvised explosive devices, and is not
detaining, prosecuting, or imprisoning citizens of Pakistan as
a result of their cooperation with U.S. counterterrorism
operations. This last condition is a clear statement of the
Committee's outrage at the 33-year prison sentence given to Dr.
Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who assisted us in our
search for Osama bin Laden. Rather than being charged with
treason and imprisoned, Dr. Afridi should be commended for his
courageous and patriotic efforts to help locate the most wanted
terrorist in the world. And while it is of great importance
that the United States and Pakistan work constructively
together, Dr. Afridi's treatment as a criminal will only do
further harm to U.S.-Pakistani relations, including diminishing
the willingness of Congress to provide financial and security
assistance to Pakistan.
In light of the new political and security challenges
facing Egypt, the bill also includes a provision that
encourages the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, to consult with Egypt's civilian and
military leaders as part of a comprehensive review of the U.S.
security relationship with Egypt.
Finally, at a time when our armed forces are still engaged
in operations in Afghanistan and deployed elsewhere around the
world, the defense authorization bill addresses vitally
important policy, programmatic, and personnel issues. The
Congress must give priority to completing action on this
legislation in a timely fashion. I am pleased to support this
bill and look forward to a spirited discussion on the floor of
the Senate this summer and in conference with the House Armed
Services Committee in the fall.''
John McCain.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. INHOFE
I voted in favor of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense
Authorization bill approved by the Senate Armed Services
Committee. The reporting out of the 51st consecutive National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by the Senate Armed Services
Committee comes at a critical time for our national security
and our military. This bill represents a bipartisan effort to
support our war fighters and maintain the readiness of the best
military in the world.
The bill includes language reaffirming this nation's need
to continue nuclear modernization and for this Administration
to uphold the commitments it made to Congress and the American
people to modernize our entire nuclear enterprise when it
ratified the New START Treaty. It authorizes an increase of
$100 million for additional Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) interceptors. The bill also provides our military
heroes with a well-deserved 1.7% across the board pay raise and
addresses long-term TRICARE sustainability issues. The bill
does not allow proposed increases in TRICARE fees proposed in
fiscal year 2013. Simply increasing fees to keep pace with
medical inflation will make TRICARE too expensive for
beneficiaries to afford. Eligible TRICARE beneficiaries opting
out of the program due to cost or inconvenience is as great a
threat as rising medical costs.
The bill also includes language that will improve the care
of our military personnel suffering the effects of Traumatic
Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The measure
urges the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to
continue to make improvements in the management, mission, and
programs of the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological
Health and Traumatic Brain Injury and to include evaluating
organization changes that could improve the centers' leadership
and strategic direction.
The Senate took a significant step to rein in the radical
green agenda that President Obama is attempting to impose on
our military. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works and a Senior Member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, I have been committed to stopping the
Administration from forcing the Department of Defense (DOD) to
spend enormous amounts of scarce resources on pointless global
warming efforts and unjustified alternative fuels, all while
the President is gutting our military, drastically reducing
DOD's budget, and cutting core programs that are vital to our
troops' safety. This committee came together in a bipartisan
fashion to prevent President Obama from achieving many aspects
of his war on affordable energy in the Defense Department. I
was disappointed that a measure making certain provisions in
Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
inapplicable to the DOD was not included. The Department of
Defense should have the flexibility to use oil sands and the
nation's large supply to coal to meet energy needs while
renewable solutions are being developed.
I was extremely disappointed that this bill fails to
contain language included in the FY12 bill that prohibits the
transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United
States--something that I will ensure is corrected when this
bill comes to the floor. Additionally, an amendment was
included that will permit taxpayer-funded abortions on military
installations. For the past several years, social issues
ranging from hate crimes to gay marriage have been attached to
this bill. Playing politics with this annual legislation does a
disservice to our service members, and I will fight to remove
these provisions as the bill moves to the Senate floor for
debate.
International partnerships are critically important. As we
have less men and women deployed around the world the standards
of good practice, techniques and skills learned during various
partnership exercises with nations will continue to pay
dividends. I applaud the Committee for funding our
International Military Education and Training program and train
and equip programs, such as the 1206 Global Train and Equip
program, and providing funding for Intelligence, Surveillance
and Reconnaissance assets in Central Africa. I am, however,
disappointed with the funding provided to Israel for their
missile defense, specifically increased funding for their
Arrow, Arrow 3, David's Sling and Iron Dome missile defense
systems.
Our nation faces significant fiscal challenges. Every
agency must wring the most use out of every dollar spent. DOD
is no exception, and I support principled decisions to make the
DOD more efficient and effective. Nevertheless, a significant
cut to the defense budget lead to decreased military
capabilities and increased risk to our national security.
Accepting more risk in a world where security threats are
increasing is unacceptable because increased risk means putting
the lives of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines in
increased danger. It is difficult to maintain our current
capabilities with flat defense budget growth. For some time, I
have been an advocate for maintaining the defense budget at a
minimum of 4% of the U.S. GDP. This amount will not only allow
us to defend our nation and fulfill our commitments to our
allies, it will also allow us to procure defense assets
efficiently, research and develop new technologies and maintain
our defense industrial base.
Many threats exist in the world today and we should
maintain force levels that allow us to continue the ability to
fight two wars simultaneously should that be necessary. I
disagree with the force structure cuts included in this bill
and the $660 million cut from the President's budget for
military construction and family housing projects. The Air
Force's ``strategic pause'' in Military Construction funding
forestalls necessary infrastructure investments. We continue to
ask our Armed Forces to do more with less, when they are
already stretched too thin. This legislation postpones many of
the cuts proposed by the Air Force requires a commission to
review the cuts proposed in the FY13 budget request.
Furthermore, the bill prevents a Base Realignment and Closure
round in 2013 and 2015. The bill also repeals dangerous changes
made in the Fiscal Year 2012 bill that affect DOD depots.
Year after year, President Obama's cuts have disarmed our
nation's military. As with years past, President Obama's budget
for military spending is too low. On top of that, the threat of
sequestration and the shift in national security strategy that
focuses on the Asia-Pacific at the detriment of other vital
areas comes close to breaking our commitment to the troops, to
their commanders, and to protecting our nation. The threat of
over one trillion dollars in cuts to national security programs
required by the sequestration mechanism of the Budget Control
Act of 2011 will make it impossible to recapitalize and reset
our aging fleet of military equipment while maintaining the
force structure required ensuring our national security.
Congress must act quickly to provide the support necessary
to our men and women in uniform.
James M. Inhofe.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. CHAMBLISS
I am pleased that the Committee adopted my amendment
expressing the Sense of the Senate that the Navy's FY14
procurement of F-35 aircraft should not be reduced if the Navy
chooses to procure additional F-18 aircraft in FY14, beyond
what they are currently planning. The intention of my amendment
is simply to express the fact that 4th generation aircraft like
the F-18 cannot substitute for 5th generation aircraft like the
F-35. The Department of Defense has acknowledged that some
money taken from the F-35 program in recent years went to
procure additional, less capable F-18s, and I am concerned this
may continue. This Committee authorized a $5 billion, multi-
year contract for 124 F-18s which will be in service for the
next twenty years, will require an additional $10 billion to
sustain over their service life if they are typical of other
major weapon systems, but which are increasingly able to be
used in fewer and fewer environments due to the proliferation
of advanced air defense systems and the F-18's inability to
penetrate contested airspace. The Navy has stated that they
have and will continue to have a ``strike fighter gap'' partly
due to the delay in fielding the F-35, and this has been used
to justify additional F-18 purchases. I am skeptical of this
justification for two reasons. First, as mentioned above, the
F-18 cannot perform the F-35 mission and the number of
environments in which the F-18 can operate freely is
diminishing. Second, in the present budget environment, every
military service is accepting gaps in force structure as well
as accepting strategic risk, and I am not yet convinced that
the Navy's strike fighter gap is more of a strategic risk than
other gaps the military services are currently accepting. Much
of the discussion about the strike fighter gap revolves around
the number of tactical aircraft necessary to fill the Navy's
carrier air wings, rather than the number of tactical aircraft
needed to meet real warfighter requirements. Former Secretary
of Defense Gates raised this two years ago when he said in
relation to this issue, ``Before making claims of requirements
not being met or alleged `gaps'--in ships, tactical fighters,
personnel or anything else--we need to evaluate the criteria
upon which requirements are based in the wider, real-world
context.'' I believe we need to better scrutinize the strike
fighter gap to make sure that the gap is tied to meeting
clearly articulated Combatant Commander requirements. Also, as
always, I believe we need to make wise use of taxpayer dollars
and not over invest in equipment and technology whose use is
increasingly constrained by other countries' ability to counter
it.
Saxby Chambliss.
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 unanimously to approve its version of the fiscal year
2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In today's
partisan climate in Washington, this act of bipartisanship is
worth celebrating. While this bill is not perfect, there are
several praiseworthy components in areas related to
sequestration, financial stewardship at the Pentagon, and
military readiness that are worth highlighting. There are also
a few omissions that I hope to address when the NDAA is
considered on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Sequestration
I applaud Senator McCain's successful effort to include a
provision in the NDAA approved by the Senate Armed Services
Committee to require the Secretary of Defense to provide a
detailed report on the specific impacts of sequestration. I
believe these details will further demonstrate the need for
Congress to act now--and not wait until the `lame duck'
session--in order to replace the cuts associated with defense
sequestration.
However, to be clear, the testimony we have already
received from the Secretary of Defense and other military
leaders provides all the information we should need to warrant
urgent action to prevent defense sequestration by coming
together to find alternative reductions. Secretary of Defense
Leon Panetta has said that cuts under sequestration would be
``devastating'' and ``catastrophic'' and would ``inflict severe
damage to our national defense for generations.''
The testimony of the service chiefs regarding defense
sequestration makes it clear why these cuts will be so
damaging. In addition to the proposed reduction of 72,000
soldiers in the size of the Army, General Odierno, the Army
Chief of Staff, has testified that defense sequestration would
force the Army to cut an additional 100,000 soldiers--with
about half coming from the National Guard and Reserve. Given
the magnitude of these reductions, it is inevitable that tens
of thousands of soldiers--most of them with more than one
deployment--will be forced to leave the Army involuntarily.
Such a step would not only break faith with service members who
have sacrificed so much for our country, but could also have a
damaging effect on the morale of those who continue to serve.
The damage defense sequestration will inflict on the Marine
Corps is equally concerning. Under sequestration, the Marine
Corps will likely face a reduction of approximately 18,000
Marines--on top of a pending force cut of 20,000. Faced with
that daunting prospect, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine
Corps, General Dunford, recently testified that the Marines
would not be able to conduct a ``single major contingency
operation.'' That is alarming testimony coming from our
nation's 9-1-1 military force.
Likewise, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Greenert,
has testified that defense sequestration would force the Navy
to cut 50 to 55 more ships from a fleet that is already about
30 short of the required 313 vessels. Such a reduction would
endanger our ability to protect critical shipping lanes that
are the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. A dramatically smaller
naval fleet caused by defense sequestration would also make a
mockery of the President's recently announced focus in the
Asia-Pacific region and cause destabilizing concerns among
allies in the region who face an ascendant China.
According to testimony by senior Air Force officials,
sequestration would threaten the Joint Strike Fighter program
and the KC-46A supertanker--next generation aircraft that are
critical to the future of U.S. air supremacy and mobility.
Unfortunately, the cuts associated with defense
sequestration will not just damage the individual services.
These cuts will also inflict severe and irreversible damage to
the nation's defense industry--depriving our warfighters of the
advanced technologies and weapons they need to accomplish their
missions. Due to the already planned reductions and in
anticipation of defense sequestration cuts, many defense
contractors will not be able to wait until January to start
laying-off employees. At a minimum, defense companies will have
to start notifying their workers in October or November of mass
layoffs and closures. For research and development and
procurement cuts alone, one study estimates that over one
million jobs within the defense industrial base will be lost.
In addition to an enormous quantity of lay-offs that will
undercut our tepid economic recovery, defense sequestration
will force many small defense companies out of business. Many
essential weapons systems rely on a large network of
subcontractors and suppliers. For key components, prime
contractors often have only one small business supplier. While
large defense companies may be able to weather defense
sequestration by laying-off employees, many small companies
will be forced to go out of business. When these vendors go out
of business, it is unlikely that they will come back--
eliminating irreplaceable expertise and leaving the American
military increasingly reliant on foreign suppliers.
We cannot wait until after the elections to stop draconian
defense sequestration cuts and find alternative spending
reductions. Every day that action is delayed brings us one step
closer to irreversible damage to our national defense. Failure
to stop the sweeping, automatic defense sequestration cuts will
diminish our military readiness, damage America's defense
industrial base, and result in massive lay-offs of defense
workers. To prevent the catastrophic damage that defense
sequestration cuts will inflict on our nation's military,
Congress needs to act now.
Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars
As our nation confronts a severe fiscal crisis, I believe
spending must be scrutinized across the entire federal
government, including spending at the Pentagon. As the defense
budget tightens in the coming years, we must use every defense
dollar wisely. For these reasons, I am pleased that the NDAA
approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee includes many
of the provisions that I have promoted to improve the
Pentagon's financial stewardship, reduce waste, and help bring
greater transparency to the defense budget.
Audit Readiness
Last year, I introduced an amendment to the defense
authorization bill that would have required the Pentagon to
complete a full statement of budget resources by 2014. This
amendment passed the Senate unanimously, but was not included
in the final bill. I am pleased to see that this year's bill
includes this requirement. In order to distinguish between
necessary defense budget cuts and cuts that would harm our
troops and damage military readiness, we must have reliable
financial data and effective business processes and systems in
place at the Pentagon. I look forward to working to ensure this
important audit requirement is included in the final bill.
Acquisition Reform
I am also pleased that the NDAA approved by the Senate
Armed Services Committee includes language that Senator McCain
and I developed to prohibit the use of cost-type contracts for
the production of major weapons systems in most cases. Cost-
type contracts have a role to play in the development of some
major weapons systems. However, in most cases, the use of cost-
type contracts for the production of major weapons systems only
facilitates spiraling acquisition costs that waste taxpayer
dollars and deprive our warfighters of the resources they need.
We can neither afford nor tolerate such wasteful acquisition
habits going forward. I congratulate the department on their
efforts to rein-in out of control acquisition costs, and I
believe our provision in the NDAA regarding the use of cost-
type contracts represents an important contribution in this
effort.
MEADS
I am also encouraged that the Senate Armed Services
Committee adopted the amendment I introduced, along with
Senators Begich and McCain and others, to prohibit any funding
for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), a troubled
weapons program that the Pentagon has said it does not plan to
procure. The Department of Defense (DOD) chose to ignore both
current law and congressional direction and requested $400.9
million for MEADS in the FY 2013 budget. Yet, the inclusion of
our prohibition in this year's bill sends a clear message to
the Pentagon and to the appropriators: our nation must not
waste any more money on MEADS.
Military Construction Reform
As the Department of Defense struggles to fund key
readiness priorities within a tightening budgetary environment,
it is imperative that contracts for the construction of DOD
facilities comply with the law by not exceeding the scope of
work authorized by Congress. Several recent Army and Air Force
projects have exceeded the size specifically authorized by
Congress in prior NDAAs. For this reason, I believe the
inclusion of my provision to amend Section 2853 is essential to
ensure the department provides unambiguous and comprehensive
guidance to prevent human errors in military construction
projects that have resulted in a violation of the law.
Readiness
Nuclear Modernization
A reliable and modern nuclear deterrent is central to
American national security. A credible nuclear arsenal deters
potential enemies from launching a nuclear attack against our
country or our allies. A strong and dependable U.S. nuclear
deterrent also helps prevent nuclear proliferation by assuring
friendly nations that a nuclear program is unnecessary. When
the U.S. fails to maintain a reliable and modern nuclear
deterrent we undermine these objectives which are central to
the security of our country.
The Senate's ratification of the New START Treaty was
contingent on the administration's commitment to modernize the
United States nuclear complex and strategic delivery systems.
Section 1251 of the fiscal year (FY) 2010 NDAA required that
the administration submit a 10-year modernization plan. In
response to this statutory requirement, in November 2010, the
administration pledged to provide sufficient funding over the
next five years relative to the initial plan provided to
Congress in May 2010.
While our nation's fiscal crisis demands that we make
difficult budget decisions, reductions to nuclear force levels
mandated by New START cannot be made without unacceptable risk
unless the arsenal and the weapons complex are modernized. For
these reasons, I believe the inclusion of the nuclear
modernization provision that I developed, along with Senator
Lieberman, in the Senate Armed Services Committee version of
the NDAA represents a positive step. This provision will
require the president to annually certify whether plans to
modernize or replace strategic nuclear delivery systems are
fully funded. If the president does not fully fund
modernization plans, he must report to Congress on the impact
this lack of funding will have on U.S. military capability and
provide a plan to address this capability shortfall.
Maritime Prepositioning
Last year, the Navy announced plans to place six of 16
ships from the three squadron Maritime Prepositioning Forces
(MPF) for the Marine Corps into ``reduced operating status''
beginning in fiscal year (FY) 13. This year, the Navy wants to
go a step further and actually wants to eliminate one of the
three maritime prepositioning squadrons and to reduce the
number of maritime prepositioning ships to 12 in FY 13. The
maritime prepositioning squadron that would be eliminated is
the squadron in the Mediterranean Sea. Eliminating this
squadron in the Mediterranean region would slow the Marine
Corps' response time in the Mediterranean region, as well as
along the west coast of Africa.
While the Navy and Marine Corps have made a reasonable
effort to identify risk mitigation strategies for this budget-
driven decision, important questions remain. For example, the
Marines have cited the Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-
Norway (MCPP-N) as a key way of mitigating the risk associated
with the elimination of a maritime prepositioning squadron.
Yet, significant questions remain regarding MCPP-N, including
the kind of equipment stored there, the maintenance status of
this equipment, shortfalls in the equipment, as well as how
long it will take to load this equipment on ships and deliver
it to the contingency location. I believe it is important to
fully understand the strategic risk associated with the Navy's
plan before it moves forward in order to ensure the U.S.
military maintains its readiness and can continue to respond
quickly to contingencies. I am pleased that my amendment to the
NDAA was included, requiring the Navy and Marine Corps to
answer these questions before proceeding with the retirement of
one of the maritime prepositioning squadrons.
Army Dwell Time and Involuntary Separations
As the Army implements end strength reductions in the
coming years, it is essential to closely monitor the impact of
these reductions on dwell time and the use of involuntary
separations. The U.S. Army is currently planning to implement a
72,000 soldier reduction in the overall size of the Army
between now and fiscal year 2017. Depending on the future
demand for U.S. ground forces, this reduction may exacerbate
dwell times for many units that are struggling to give their
soldiers sufficient time at home between deployments. This time
at home allows units to train for the full spectrum of
potential missions, to repair equipment, and to recuperate with
their families. When time between deployments is cut short, all
three areas suffer. Short dwell times undermine our military's
readiness for future contingencies.
I am also concerned about the Army's planned use of
involuntary separations in order to achieve end strength
reduction goals. Thomas Lamont, the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, testified that
approximately 23,000-24,000 enlisted soldiers and 4,500-5,000
officers may have to be involuntarily separated from the Army
to achieve the end strength reduction. I am pleased that the
NDAA passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee includes my
provision that will require the Army and Marine Corps to
provide periodic reports regarding their use of involuntary
separations. I believe involuntarily separating some of our
best soldiers--many of whom will have deployed overseas
multiple times--represents an unacceptable breach of faith with
service members and their families who have sacrificed much for
our country. Forcing pink slips into the hands of thousands of
battle-hardened soldiers as they return home from deployments
in order to meet an arbitrary and budget-driven reduction in
the size of the Army could also endanger the morale of those
who continue to serve.
Using my reporting requirement included in this year's
NDAA, I plan to monitor Army dwell times carefully over the
coming years to ensure our soldiers have sufficient time at
home between deployments to recuperate with their families,
repair their equipment, and train for full spectrum operations.
I also plan to monitor the Army's use of involuntary
separations to ensure we treat our service members justly and
that we do not take personnel actions that could damage the
morale and readiness of the all-volunteer force.
Naval Fleet
The Chief of Naval Operations testified last year that the
Navy needs 313 ships and submarines to meet its strategic
requirements. The Navy currently has about 285 ships and subs.
As a result, the Navy cannot meet many combatant commander
requirements. For example, the Navy can only meet 61 percent of
combatant commander requirements for attack submarines. Despite
being approximately 30 ships short of the requirement and the
inability of the Navy to meet combatant commander requirement,
there are reports that the Navy may soon drop the requirement
from 313 to 300 ships and submarines. In light of the
President's strategy and the new focus on the Asia-Pacific,
current operational requirements, and the emergence of
competitors challenging U.S. naval dominance, it is difficult
to understand why the Navy's requirement for ships would be
potentially declining. I am pleased that the SASC-approved NDAA
includes my provision that will require the Navy to confirm the
current requirement for ships and submarines and justify any
change to the Navy's requirement.
Detainees
I am pleased that the NDAA passed by the Senate Armed
Services Committee includes provisions to extend the
prohibition on the use of funds to construct or modify
facilities in the U.S. for use by detainees transferred from
Guantanamo. I am also pleased that the NDAA extends to 2013 the
requirements for certifications on transfers of detainees to
foreign countries and entities.
However, I was disappointed this year's NDAA did not extend
the prohibition on the transfer or release to or within the
U.S. of Guantanamo detainees. We have a top-rate facility at
Guantanamo that allows for the secure and humane detention and
interrogation of foreign terrorist detainees. It is unclear why
this prohibition against bringing Guantanamo detainees to the
U.S. would not have been extended into 2013, and I worry that
it may signal an effort by the administration to bring
Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.
When the NDAA goes to the floor later this year, I plan to
introduce an amendment to extend this prohibition on the
transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. through 2013.
I am also perplexed that the NDAA does not address the fact
that our military still does not have a designated facility for
the detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists.
President Obama has sought to close Guantanamo and has refused
to put new detainees there despite the repeated testimony of
our military leaders that a designated detention facility for
the long-term detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists
would be very helpful. This refusal has put our military
leaders in a difficult and dangerous situation. The lack of a
designated long-term detention facility has forced our military
to use sub-standard, ad-hoc workarounds as they did in the case
of Abdul Kadir Warsarme.
For the last year and a half, witness after witness has
come before the Senate Armed Services Committee, including the
Commander of Special Operations Command, Admiral McRaven, and
testified that there is no plan for where we would detain and
interrogate someone like Ayman al-Zawahiri if we were to
capture him.
In April 2011, I questioned General Carter Ham, the
Commander of Africa Command, about what we would do if we
captured a member of al Qaeda in Africa. He said he would need,
``some lawyerly help on answering that one.'' That is testimony
we should never hear from a combatant commander.
The lack of a designated long-term detention facility also
encourages the release of former Guantanamo detainees. Yet,
almost 28% of detainees who have been released from Guantanamo
have reengaged or are suspected of having reengaged in
terrorist activity. Former Guantanamo detainees are conducting
suicide bombings, recruiting radicals, and training them to
kill Americans and our allies. Said al Shihri and Abdul Zakir
represent two examples of former Guantanamo detainees who
returned to the fight and assumed leadership positions in
terrorist organizations dedicated to killing Americans and our
allies. Said al Shihri has worked as the No. 2 in al Qaeda in
the Arabian Peninsula. Abdul Zakir now serves as a top Taliban
military commander and a senior leader in the Taliban Quetta
Shura.
In February 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence, Michael Vickers, said, ``The administration is in
the final stages of establishing its detention policy.'' More
than a year later, we are still waiting. On March 6, 2012,
during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked the
Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, Admiral McRaven,
whether anything had changed in the last year and whether we
had a designated facility for the long-term detention and
interrogation of foreign terrorist detainees. Admiral McRaven
responded, ``No, ma'am, nothing has changed since then.''
This absence of a designated long-term detention and
interrogation facility for foreign terrorists, consistent with
the laws of war, represents a major national security
shortcoming. I look forward to addressing this issue when the
NDAA goes to the floor of the U.S. Senate for consideration.
Kelly Ayotte.